A Dublin man has argued before the High Court that a 19th century Act which provides for a mandatory prison sentence for people convicted of begging is unconstitutional because it discriminates between the rich and poor.
Niall Dillon claimed the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 invidiously discriminates between the rich and the poor and breaches the rights to freedom of expression and to communicate.
He argued that a mandatory prison sentence of up to three months for begging interferes with the freedom of the judiciary and breaches the separation of powers between the legislature and judiciary.
Mr Justice Éamon de Valera yesterday reserved judgment on the challenge by Mr Dillon, whose trial on a charge of begging stands adjourned pending the outcome of the High Court case.
Mr Dillon brought the challenge after he was charged with begging on Parliament Street, Dublin, on September 19th, 2003. He said he was outside the Spar shop on Parliament Street when he was arrested and that he had earlier been given a cup of coffee and a sandwich by the shop manager as he had prevented a theft from the shop. He was sitting outside the shop with a cup in a quiet and peaceful manner when he was arrested, he claimed.
He is challenging section 3 of the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act on the grounds it is inconsistent with the Constitution because it provides for a mandatory prison sentence on conviction and therefore interferes with the independence and discretion of the judiciary.
The mandatory sentence means the judge must impose a prison sentence regardless of the character or personal circumstances of the accused or the particular nature of the offence, it was submitted.
The blanket prohibition on begging in section 3 invidiously discriminates between the rich and the poor and also discriminates between those charged with begging offences and those charged with other offences relating to public order, it was also argued.
The language of the section means, it was claimed, that requests for help from people who have adopted begging as a mode of life is unlawful while requests for help made by better-dressed people for other, less critical needs, is lawful.
The judge heard that the Law Reform Commission, in its 1985 report on vagrancy, had recommended that the entire 1847 Act be repealed and replaced with a new offence of begging in a public place or from house-to-house in a manner likely to cause fear or annoyance.
The commission had said that imprisonment was undesirable in many cases and recommended that a fine be also available as a penalty. In opposing the challenge, it was argued on behalf of the DPP and the Attorney General that section 3 does not discriminate between rich and poor or between citizens on the basis of their characteristics.
While it might be argued the section affected the poor more than the rich because it was from the former group that people who beg were likely to be drawn, not all the poor engaged in the act of begging, it was submitted.
