A Customs offence which was challenged on the basis that the rich are fined and the poor are jailed has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court.
The court said the impugned section of the Finance Act 1997 had been challenged because it carried a fine of treble the value of the goods or a term of imprisonment, or both the fine and imprisonment.
The court ruled that section 89(b) of the Finance Act 1997, which provides for fines and/or terms of imprisonment, is consistent with the separation of powers, does not constitute wealth-based discrimination and is consistent with the constitutional principle of proportionality.
Three people who are being prosecuted for alleged excise offences had challenged the constitutionality of the Act, claiming wealth-based discrimination.
They had also claimed that the fine was a fixed penalty contrary to the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, said the section of the Act provided for choice of penalty - a fine or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both fine and imprisonment.
There was no question of the legislature or the Executive fixing the punishment, he said.
The argument about wealth-based discrimination "crudely put more or less runs that the rich are fined and the poor are sent to prison", he said. There were "several fallacies" in the argument.
The section provided for a fine and/or prison sentence and there was no element of discrimination, he ruled.
The Chief Justice said it had been submitted by one of the appellants that she had no money and may be forced to plead guilty to avoid the substantial fine which would be imposed if she was found guilty after a trial.
It was a matter of choice whether to plead guilty or not and it must be assumed that this would depend on whether the accused knew he or she was guilty, Mr Justice Murray said.
The section was a revenue offence, money should have been available to pay the duty and, in those circumstances, a financial penalty was not unjust, he found.