Judge says begging can be controlled

A High Court judge who last year struck down the law preventing begging has said nothing in his judgment prevents the legislature…

A High Court judge who last year struck down the law preventing begging has said nothing in his judgment prevents the legislature making laws controlling the location, time, date or manner in which begging takes place.

Mr Justice Eamon de Valera said it was accepted that the right to communicate and freedom of expression can be limited in the interest of the common good.

The judge said the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 was introduced at the height of the Great Famine in the fifth year of the reign of Victoria by the British Parliament.

The famine disaster had reduced the population of Ireland from more than eight million people to four million during a period of just over four years.

READ MORE

Had the 1985 Law Reform Commission report on vagrancy (which recommended that the entire of the 1847 Vagrancy Act be repealed and replaced) received the attention it deserved, it would probably have made the case before him unnecessary, the judge added.

He was giving his detailed judgment outlining his reasons for his decision in March 2006 upholding a challenge by Niall Dillon to Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act after he was charged with begging on Parliament Street, Dublin, on September 19th, 2003. Mr Dillon was described as a graduate who fell on hard times.

Mr Justice de Valera found Section 3 was unconstitutional because it excessively interfered with Mr Dillon's right of freedom of expression. On that basis, he granted an order preventing Mr Dillon's trial.

Mr Justice de Valera rejected additional claims by Mr Dillon that Section 3 was unconstitutional because it provided for a "mandatory" prison term of up to one month for begging. He ruled that judges have a discretion in relation to the sanction imposed and the provision for a sentence of up to one month was not a mandatory sentence.

Mr Dillon claimed 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 Mr Dillon had prevented a theft from the shop. He claimed he was sitting outside the shop with a cup in a quiet and peaceful manner when he was arrested.