The Gazette 1991

GAZETTE

JUNE 1991

to public services and facilities,

specifically including hotels and

many catering establishments.

Although there is no specific ban

in Ireland on racial and related

discrimination in entry to hotels

- and a case for general legislation

inthis area does exist - the

common law does contain a clear

English decision which held that a

refusal to permit a black person to

stay in a hotel was illegal.

Interestingly, there was an early

American decision

where a

refusal to admit a black person was

held to be reasonable where the

likelihood of damage to the

business could be established. It

seems very unlikely that such a

viewwould be accepted here now.

This is an area where the wider

public and constitutional policy

ideals of racial harmony and equal

opportunity would over-rule what

may have been an honest, though

self interested, motive for refusal.

Furthermore, it was very clearly the

intent of the Oireachtas when

enacting s.3(1) that it would

prohibit refusals on account of

race.

Itinerants

Many hotels refuse to admit

itinerants on the basis that they are

disruptive and may cause violence

or damage to property. Itinerants

can also be refused because of

local opposition to itinerants being

served and because of feared

effect on the hotel's business. It is,

however, difficult to see how any

general anti-itinerant policy

pursued by a hotel can be

reasonable.

Such an attitude

assumes, what is not the case, that

all itinerants are necessarily

troublesome and disorderly. This

can, effectively, amount to a form

of racism.

But, though s.3(1) may make any

general policy of refusal to serve

itinerants illegal, a hotel can still

refuse to serve particular itinerants

for the good reason - based on the

experience of the hotel itself, and

more problematically other hotels

as well - that they have unjusti-

fiably caused difficulty for the hotel

" . . . S 3(1) may make any

general policy of refusal to serve

itinerants illegal . .

in the past. Furthermore, where an

itinerant wishes to attend a dance

or a wedding function, s.3(1) does

not apply, and consequently the

hotel does not have to act

reasonably in refusing entry to the

person, subject only to the terms of

any prior contract and, possibly,

constitutional provisions.

Accent and Demeanour

It rarely happens that refusal of

admittance to a hotel is explicitly

stated to be because the person is

judged by his accent, mannerism

and general demeanour to be

undesirable, or because it is

thought he would lower the

standards of the hotel. Yet, since

many hotels, and especially higher

grade ones, seek to give the

impression of serving a select

clientele and of "maintaining

standards", there is, in fact, reason

to suspect t hat hotels do

sometimes disguise the real reason

for refusal by insisting that the

hotel is full, or that the person's

clothes do not conform to the

hotel's dress code, or that the

person is a trouble maker, drunk or

cheeky. Certainly, if the reason

given for the refusal is not the real

one, then regardless of whether the

real reason was, on its merits,

acceptable or not, the lie told will

probably render the refusal

unreasonable.

This point has a

special relevance where a hotel

does not wish to let it be known

that the refusal was made for what

might be called " s n o b b i s h"

reasons. Obviously, though, it is not

easy for a prospective guest to

show in court that the reason given

was not the real one.

Whether it is reasonable to

refuse to admit a person because

of his common appearance, or

because of his background,

depends on the weight to be

attached to the deliberate policy of

a hotel, based, perhaps, on good

economic grounds, that business

will be lost if it is obliged to admit

such people. It could be suggested,

for instance, that since there may

be alternative local establishments

where such a customer could be

served, that greater scope should

be allowed to modern hotels to set

standards and prices appropriate to

the socio-economic group which

the hotel wishes to serve.

Undoubtedly, there is merit in this

view. It is suported by the logic of

s.3(2) of the 1963 Act, which

requires a hotel to only charge

whatever prices are current at the

time in the hotel.

Yet, acceptance of this reasoning

could denude the basic obligation

in s.3(1) of much of its force

because the duty to admit and

serve in s.3(1) would then only

Doyle Court Reporters

Principal:

Áine O'Farrell

Court and Conference Verbatim Reporting

Specialists in Overnight Transcription

2, Arran Quay, Dublin 7. Tel: 722833 or 862097

(After Hours)

T^ceHence in Importing since 19S4

179