The Gazette 1991

GAZETTE

JU LY/AUGUST

1991

is reasonable and, therefore, within s.3(1). It would merely suggest that the code was not being used for indirect social discrimination, but the code will still fall to be judged according to whether it was an intrinsically reasonable one. Restricted Area Dress Codes As regards hotel dress codes that do not operate from point of entry throughout the entire hotel, and only operate in a specific part of the hotel, usually the restaurant, the hotel has a much greater freedom to fix whatever dress code it wishes. Restricted area dress codes are much more likely to be reasonable, and therefore legal, than entire area codes. This is because once the customer is admitted into the hotel and served as he wishes, his right under s.3(1) is exhausted. The right does not extend to entry into any particular lounge or restaurant so long as there is still some acceptable place where he can be served. 12 It would seem, then, that the hotel could set whatever type of dress code it wished for access to its lounge or restaurant, and the code could be as standards - related as the hotel wished. (1) See Dail Debates Vol. 198 Col. 842, Vol. 199 Col. 433 435. (2) The constitutionality of Title II of the 1964 Act - dealing with public accommodation discrimination - has been upheld in a hotel case - Heart of Atlanta Motel v U.S. (1964) 379 U.S. 241. (3) The provisions of s.2(1) of

enough to let it be known that he objects to the racial or itinerant origins of the customer, and this is likely to .stir up hatred against the group to which the pros- pective customer belongs, then an offence under the 1988 Act may be committed. Hotels [1894] 1KB 693. (5) State -v- Steele (1890) 106 NC 766, 782. See Hartmann, Racial and Religious Discri- mination by Innkeepers in USA (1949) 12 MLR 449. (6) In the Dail Debates - Vol. 198 Col. 842 - on the Hotel Proprietors Bill in 1962, the then Minister for Justice (C. Haughey) stated " i t seems absolutely clear to me that no Irish court would hold that colour would be a reasonable ground for refusing admission to any prospective guest". (7) See Consolidated Hotels -v- Ke/sey [1982] 2 NZLR 492, 469, where a New Zealand court held a general policy of refusal to serve members of gangs illegal under a law similar to our 1963 Act. (8) Kenny -v- O'Loughlin (1944) 78 ILTR 116. (9) See Hoban -v- Royal Hibernian Hotel (1945) 80 ILTR 61, 64. (10) S.3(2) of the 1963 Act is intended to prevent a hotel refusing a customer by upping its prices on the spot. Yet, by only requiring the prices charged to be whatever is current in the hotel, it does not prevent a hotel from using its prices policy as a cover for refusing customers. Before 1963, the hotel was obliged to charge reasonable prices, and was therefore restricted in using its prices policy as a cover for refusing undesir- ables. The change effected in the 1963 Act was attributed in t he Dail Debates to representations f r om the hotel industry - Dail Debates Vol. 198 Col. 399, Vol. 199 Col. 1106. (11) An example of a hotel restaurant dress code is that customers must not wear overcoats while sitting at the table. See Lynam -v- Central Hotel [1959] Ir. Jur. Rep. 56. (12) R -v- Sprague (1899) 12 JP 233. (4) Constantine -v- Imperial

James Nash F.S.S. Dip. Forensic Document Examiner and Handwriting Consultant 38, Monastery Rise, Clondalkin, Dublin 22. Telephone: (01) 571323

The First Bayslde Village Development Society Limited Residents Association

(Registered under the Friendly Society's Act)

The Management Committee of the First Bayside Village Development Society Ltd., would like to draw Solicitors' attention to Item 19, 4th Schedule Lease of Bayside, which deals with transfer of shares to the Society. Failure by solicitors to comply with this Item in the conveyancing of house sales in Bayside is viewed in a very serious light as it is the custom of the above Society to ensure that all monies owing to it are paid before any transfer is approved. Any queries regarding the above should be sent to: John Byrne Sutton Grove, Bayside, Sutton, Dublin 13. TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS AND THE ISLE OF MAN Samuel McCleery Attorney - at - Law and Solicitor of PO Box 127 in Grand Turk,Turks and Caicos Islands, British West Indies and at 1 Castle Street, Castletown, Isle of Man will be pleased to accept instructions generally from Irish Solicitors in the formation and administration of Exempt Turks and Caicos Island Companies and Non - Resident Isle of Man Companies as well as Trust Administration G. T Office:- Tel: 809 946 2818 Fax: 809 946 2819 I.O.M.Office:- Tel: 0624 822210 Telex : 628285 SamdanG Fax: 0624 823799

Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Act 1988 could, how- ever, be relevant in the right circumstances. Section 2(1) criminalises words and be- haviour which are heard or seen in a public place which are insulting and which, in all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred against a group on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins or membership of the travelling community. While this provision might not have an obvious application to hotel refusals, it seems quite conceivable that if a hotel refusal is carried out in front of other people while inside or outside the hotel, and the hotel employee is indiscreet

182