Pubs refusing admission to Under 23s

I was in the Odeon on Saturday night. On the way in I noticed a sign saying something along the lines of 'it is our policy to refuse admission to those under 23 years of age'.

To the best of my knowledge, the Odeon has a public license, not a private nightclub license, and so any member of the public who can prove they are over 18years of age are entitled to enter this public house.

Is there policy legal? I want to get a definitive answer on this cos it seems to go against the whole ethos of the Equality Status Act. Everyone will have their own opinions on whether its a good or bad policy, but I'd prefer to discuss the actual legalities of it. Thanks

I think you will find that the "Law of Bouncers" particularly in Dublin, is a law/set of rules/set of standards from another planet and probably has very little to do with the law of the land!

To my knowledge, licensed premises are entitled to refuse entry to a person where they consider them a possible/potential risk to themselves or to other people (irrespective of their age). They cannot of course discriminate against a person on any one of the 9 grounds (sex, religion, disability, etc.) set out in Equality legislation.

I read somewhere recently that pubs, bars and nightclubs in Ireland are allowed to set a minimum age for the sale and consumption of alcohol above the statutory minimum age of 18. This policy must be publicly displayed and operated in good faith. I presume this stems from the fact that these are private premises and the owners can reserve the right to refuse admission.

I've checked this issue with the Equality Authority recently, in relation to admission to a cafe by an older person. I was informed that the cafe owner was entitled to reserve the right to refuse admission so long as they were not doing so on purely the basis of one of the 9 grounds.

Mmm, that sounds strange.

Obviously the licenses premises can't assume that just because the person is between the ages of 18 and 23 they are a possible/potential risk so that cannot be an acceptable justification for this policy. Actually, I'm pretty sure they have to substantiate why a person is a possible/potential risk (i.e. they can't just say 'He looked like he was trouble' - they need to prove that the person was either acting threateningly or drunk).

The Equality Status Act includes age as one of the grounds for discrimination - e.g. you cannot discriminate against someone based on age, just the same as you cannot discriminate based on race.

However, I think there may well have been some recent revision to the legislation, which is probably what CMCR heard, as I can't imagine the pubs would come out with what would otherwise amount to blatant breaches of it.

By the way, a pub or a bar, are both public house and, as such, are public, not private, premises, and so the management do not reserve the right to refuse admission, except, when the person is not of legal age, or is drunk or posing a threat (and some other clauses, but the pub does not have the right to refuse admission because they do not like the look of someone, or the person is not a regular).

On your point on the admittance of the older person to the cafe: so what the Equality Authority essentially told you was that the fact the person was old should be irrelevant to deciding if they should be granted admission?

What I meant by 'licenced premises are entitled to refuse admission where they consider someone a threat to themselves or to others', is in the context of someone turning up at the door drunk, or obviously on drugs, or where they using threatening or abusive behaviour, or where a reasonable opinion is formed that the provision of service/accommodation to the customer would produce a substantial risk of criminal or disorderly conduct or behaviour, or damage to property in or around the area where the service is provided.

There are various exemptions under Equality legislation relating to clubs, admission, etc. For example, where the principal purpose of the club is to cater only for the needs of persons of a particular gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief or none they are not considered discriminating.

In terms of the issue regarding the older person and the cafe: there is obviously more to this story than I have posted. In fact, the age of the person is irrelevant as it could equally relate to a young person.

In summary, the owner of the cafe wished to deny admission to the premises by the older person but feared they could be subject to a discrimination case. Advice I received was, so long as the decision to deny admission to the premises was not on the basis of one of the 9 grounds (and it was not), then the cafe owner could deny admission.

CMCR

Thanks CMCR - so your understanding seems to be fairly close to mine: if a person is drunk/high/threatening, they can be refused admission. A private club can choose who it wants to let in.

The cafe owner can refuse anyone as long as its not based on one of the 9 grounds, which includes age.

All of this leads me to ask - is it legal for a public house with a public license (i.e. The Odeon) to refuse admission to someone who is neither drunk, high, or threatening, simply because that person's age is 18,19,20,21, or 22?

Where do I go to find a definitive answer on this one cos its one of my pet hates?

When the legislation came out first, I think that it meant that nobody could be refused entry to a pub etc. on grounds of age (provided they were over 18), but the legislation was subsequently amended to allow for over 21s, 23s only etc.

The vintners association as they have direct there members in a law abiding way and they also deal with public enquiries

what about clubs that openly advertise that ladies are free in whereas guys must pay the full entry fee....surely thats discrimination?

CCOVICH said:

When the legislation came out first, I think that it meant that nobody could be refused entry to a pub etc. on grounds of age (provided they were over 18), but the legislation was subsequently amended to allow for over 21s, 23s only etc.

Click to expand...

So if you were a twenty year old and a member of the Travelling community you could take them to court for discrimination!

If they discriminated against you as a member of the Travelling Community you could complain to the Equality Authority.

I unsuccessfully argued, on behalf of a priest relative, that the travel allowance letting over 66's travel free and take a spouse with them for free was discriminating against him based on the religious discrimination rule - I argued that if he can't get married on the basis of his relief's he should be able to nominate a travel partner or otherwise he was being discriminated against.

The equality authority stated that the rules allow for concessions to be made to families/married couples.