188 / 262
brought by Mr. Michael Quinn, of Dangan Park, Kim-
mage Road West, Dublin, against the refusal of the
District Court to grant him a licence.
Mr. Justice Henchy, in his judgment, said that the
club was a well-known dance hall. Mr. Quinn and his
partners had run public dances there since 1968 under
licences and had spent some £5,000 in improving and
renovating it. Under the annual public dance-hall
licence granted to the applicant in September, 1969,
53,339 people attended public dances there—or pre-
sumably that number of tickets were sold. No fault was
found with the hall or the way the dances were con-
ducted or supervised. There were no complaints about
noise emanating from the hall during dances and ade-
quate precautions were taken by the applicant's staff
to prevent disorderly or troublesome persons from
entering the premises or being present at dances.
The suitability of Mr. Quinn to hold a public dance
hall licence was not questioned, nor was any fault found
with tho e associated with him in running the hall.
Nevertheless, continued Mr. Justice Henchy, when
Mr. Quinn applied in 1970 in the District Court for an
annual dance-hall licence, his application was refused.
He appealed to the Circuit Court against that refusal.
The appeal came before Judge Wellwood, who heard
evidence that when dances were held on Fridays,
Saturdays or Sundays, or on the eves of public holidays,
or on public holidays, many people came to the dances,
not from Clondalkin but from Dublin and surrounding
areas.
Some of them, he said, came by bus, and because of
their drunken and offensive conduct, bus crews and
members of the travelling public were intimidated,
Garda assistance had to be sent for, and bus services
were disrupted.
Furthermore, the incursion of such people into Clon-
dalkin, which was largely a residential area, disrupted
the lives of local residents because of noisy conduct,
disorderly behaviour, shouting, obscene language, urin-
ation on public and private property and offences such
as assault and malicious damage to property.
While such conduct did not, in the main, take place
in the immediate proximity of the hall, and was outside
the control of Mr. Quinn, the particular dances in the
hall would seem to be the occasion, if not the focal
point, of the misconduct.
What the Gircu't Court judge asked in the case
stated was whether he might treat the misconduct in
question as a relevant matter for the purpose of Section
2, sub-section 2 of the Public Dance Halls Act, 1935,
notwithstanding that it would not be controlled by Mr.
Quinn and was not his fault.
The question was essentially one of statutory inter-
pretation, said Mr. Justice Henchy.
He said that not alone was the District Justice, err the
Circuit Court judge on appeal, entitled to have regard
to "any other matter which may appear to him to be
relevant" (part of the wording of the section), but he
was bound to do so.
He said the wording of the question framed by the
Circuit Court judge would suggest that the only reason
he had to doubt the relevance of the misconduct in
question was because it could not be controlled by Mr.
Quinn and was not attributable to any act or default
on his part.
"The fact that the applicant is in no way to be
blamed for the misconduct, and that it is not within his
power to control it, are, of account so as to redound
against course, matters not to be taken into the charac-
ter or conduct of the applicant or to reflect any lack
of propriety or efficiency in the conduct of dances in
the hall. But they are part of the picture presented of
the impact which the holding of dances in this hall at
weekends and on the eves of public holidays and on
public holidays has had on the lives of people who live
in the Clondalkin area. As such they must be deemed
relevant considerations," said Mr. Justice Henchy.
He said he had no doubt that the sub-section
authorised—indeed required—the Circuit Court judge
to have regard to evidence tendered as to the effect the
grant of a licence had had on the lives of local resi-
dents, in their homes, on the streets and, generally
speaking, in the pursuit of their lawful occasions.
Such evidence was not to be disregarded, since it was
the necessary basis for an assessment by the judge of
the likely social and environmental consequences of the
grant of a fresh licence, and since it would enable him
to balance the merits of the applicant's claim to be
given the licence against the adverse effect the grant of
it would be likely to have on the personal lives and
amenities of local residents.
Mr. Justice Henchy said it was to be noted, however,
that the evidence in question might not be looked at in
isolation. The sub-section required the judge to have
regard to all relevant matters. Thus, if the evidence
were that the mischief complained of could be elimin-
ated or substantially alleviated by greater activity on
the part of those charged with the maintenance of
public order, the judge would be required to give due
weight to that factor. But if, after a due appraisal,
made in good faith, of all the relevant evidence pre-
sented to him, the judge were to grant or refuse the
licence, he (Mr. Justice Henchy) did not see how that
decision could be challenged as being
ultra vires
the
Act.
Mr. Justice Henchy said that although it did not
directly arise on the case stated, he would point out that
whatever doubts there might have been about the ad-
missibility of the evidence in question for the purpose
of Section 2, sub-section 2, it would seem to be clearly
admissable for the purpose of Section 4, which gave
power to the-District Justice or the Circuit Court judge
on appeal to grant a licence subject to such conditions
and restrictions as he thought proper and, in particular
—without prejudice tot he generality of that power—
subject to conditions limiting the days on which and
the hours during which the dance hall might be used
for public dances.
Mr. Justice Walsh and Mr. Justice Griffin agreed
with the judgment. The court's decision is now remitted
to the Circuit Court judge for consideration in his
decision on the appeal.
(The Irish Times,
27 July 1973.)
Prison sentence on R.T.E. man quashed—£250 fine
substituted on contempt issue
The Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday quashed
the sentence of three months' imprisonment imposed
by the Special Criminal Court on November 25 last
on Kevin O'Kelly, the Radio Telefis Eireann journalist,
during the Sean Mac Stiofáin trial. Instead, it was
ordered that he should pay a fine of £250 with three
months' imprisonment in default.
Mr. O'Kelly was sentenced by the Special Criminal
Court for refusing to answer a question put by the
Court as to the identity of a man whose voice was on
a tape-recorded interview. He was imprisoned but re-
leased two days later on bail pending his appeal to the
Court of Criminal Appeal.
(A fuller report will appear in the November issue.)
185