Three separate groups of men – who believed they were refused admission and/or service at city bars because they were Travellers – have had their civil actions for redress dismissed by a District Court judge.

The first and second group sought redress from John Francis, nominee of the Menlo Park Hotel Ltd while a third group sought redress from Clybaun Taverns Ltd, trading as Tom Sheridan’s, and John Mannion, nominee of the premises, on the grounds they had been discriminated against and were left feeling embarrassed and humiliated by the refusals which were deemed unlawful, discriminatory and contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended by the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.

A fourth, separate civil action for redress which was brought by Daniel Delaney, 21 Fana Glas, against Paul Gill, nominee of the Claregalway Hotel, was withdrawn by solicitor Michael Cunningham from O’Carroll & Co solicitors, which represented all of the applicants.

The first of the hearings before Galway District Civil Court heard evidence from three Delaney brothers who reside at Carrowbrowne halting site.

It also heard evidence in relation to the second complaint from brothers Brian and Keith McDonagh, from Ballinfoile.

James, Connie and Michael Delaney, each sought redress against John Francis, nominee of the Menlo Park Hotel Ltd.

for refusing them entry to the hotel bar on April 6, 2019 on the grounds they were members of the Travelling community and that they were refused entry by staff while others members of the public were present and permitted entry to the premises.

Brian and Keith McDonagh, who were on their third pint in the bar when the Delaneys came in, sought redress for being refused further service on the grounds that they were members of the travelling community too and because they had remonstrated with staff over the way the Delaneys had been refused entry to the bar.

Following over two hours of contested evidence, Judge John King took just ten seconds to find no evidence of discrimination in the case presented to the court.

He dismissed all of the men’s claims for damages and awarded costs against them to the Menlo Park hotel.

The Delaneys each gave evidence they and a family friend went to the hotel for a drink on Saturday evening, April 6 last year.

They were half-way between the door and the bar area when a security man stopped them.

He asked them if they were residents or had made bookings and when they answered in the negative, he told them it was “residents only” and they would have to leave.

The brothers said they were targeted that evening because they were Travellers.

The security man who stopped them and also Mr Francis gave evidence denying there was a hotel policy of discrimination against Travellers.

They said the hotel was fully booked that night and staff were getting ready to host two large annual fundraising functions, both of which had booked spaces in the bar area for pre-dinner drinks receptions.

Management made the decision early in the evening, they said, to implement a ‘residents only’ policy and allow only those with bookings into the bar area, due to the numbers on the premises.

They denied the Delaneys were refused entry because they were Travellers.  They also explained the McDonaghs were refused more drink and had to be asked to leave the bar when they became loud and argumentative with staff, causing unease to other patrons in the bar.

Mr Francis said the hotel had regularly catered for Traveller groups down through the years without any difficulties.

Judge King said he found no evidence of discrimination against the Delaney’s or McDonagh’s. He dismissed their claims and awarded the hotel its legal costs.

The hotel’s solicitor, Willie Kennedy, said he would not look for his costs if the applicants did not appeal the court’s decision.

The following day, Mr Cunningham withdrew a third, separate application for redress, brought by Daniel Delaney, from Fana Glas, against Paul Gill, nominee of the Claregalway Hotel.  By consent, Judge King struck out the action and made no order as to costs.

The fourth redress action was brought by brothers, Bernard and Tom McDonagh, from 3 Garrai Domhnall, Cappagh Road, and was heard the following day.

Bernard McDonagh gave evidence he was doing social studies in college at present.

He said he and his brother went to watch a soccer match in Sheridan’s pub at 5.50pm last St Stephen’s Day but were refused entry by a doorman.

He said the doorman looked them up and down and told them it was ‘locals only’ and that there was an event on that night and they could only get in if they had tickets.

Mr McDonagh said they asked the doorman to see the tickets and he went in and came back out with raffle tickets from a stub.

He said other people were walking in past them and the doorman made no attempt to stop them or ask them for tickets.

Mr McDonagh said he and his brother only wanted to see the match which was on Sky Sports.

“We asked other people in the carpark and they said they didn’t know anything about tickets,” he said.

“We didn’t gain entry because of discrimination and because Travellers get discriminated against.  That is definitely what happened to us.  He looked us up and down at the door and we saw other people enter the pub,” he said.

Solicitor for the respondents, Benen Fahy, said his client had written a letter to the McDonaghs on receiving a letter from their solicitor, explaining why they were refused entry to the premises that night and telling them they would be welcome in the pub any time they liked.

Mr McDonagh said he would not be returning to the pub at any time because he was not welcome there last St Stephen’s night.

Mr Fahy said the doorman had said to the McDonaghs that it was ‘regulars only’ and not ‘locals only’ as Mr McDonagh had suggested in evidence.

He said the pub was in Knocknacarra which had a large catchment area. The pub was very, very busy that particular night and management made a decision to restrict entry to ‘regulars only’, Mr Fahy explained.

He said the doorman had mentioned drink vouchers and not raffle tickets to the McDonaghs.  The drink vouchers had been given out in the preceding weeks to regulars and only people with the vouchers were being allowed in that night, Mr Fahy said.

He said the doorman and the manager did not recognise the McDonaghs as regulars on the night.

Mr Fahy said other people were refused entry to the premises that evening because they didn’t have drink vouchers to prove they were regulars.

Mr Cunningham said only a short snippet of CCTV from the door was available and it did not show other people being turned away during the time his clients were refused entry. There was no CCTV either, he said, to support the pub’s contention that other people were turned away before and after the time the McDonagh’s arrived at the premises.

Judge King said the pub’s management recognised the McDonagh brothers now and he suggested an adjournment  to “test the waters” and see if there was any difficulty with the brothers going to the pub.

“There should be consequences for the pub today,” Tom McDonagh said to the judge.

Mr Cunningham agreed this was a matter his clients wished to pursue.

Tom McDonagh said the doorman realised they were Travellers as they approached the door.

Mr Fahy asked the doorman, Denis Malone, if there was a possibility of a ‘nod and a wink’ going on here to keep the McDonaghs out because they were Travellers.

Mr Malone said he didn’t know the lads were Travellers.  He just knew they weren’t regulars because he didn’t recognise them and they didn’t have drink vouchers.

General manager, Martin Meehan, said St Stephen’s Night is one of the busiest nights of the year and staff had been told to admit regulars only as there was a large charity function on the premises that night, while other patrons had pre-booked tables.

“The McDonaghs were refused because they were not regulars and the doorman didn’t know them.

“We do not discriminate and members of the Travelling community often come in,” he told the court.

Mr Meehan said he had a second, longer CCTV tape showing other people being refused entry on the night but he had mislaid it during the Covid lockdown and could not locate it now.

He said there had never been a complaint before and he viewed this complaint very seriously.

Judge King said he accepted the McDonagh brothers had sincerely and genuinely felt they had been discriminated against but he could not find any evidence to back that up.

He dismissed their claims but made no order for costs against them, as he felt they were genuine in their evidence to the court.