The Court of Appeal has dismissed Darragh Galvin’s appeal against the High Court’s rejection of his challenge to laws governing the sale of tobacco without the required tax stamp and excluding the Probation of Offenders Act from excise offences.
The appeal concerned a prosecution arising from a 2016 attempt to sell 14 pouches of tobacco bought from a friend who had returned from Turkey. Galvin advertised the tobacco on a Ballyfermot Facebook buy-and-sell page for €140. Revenue officers arranged a test purchase, seized the tobacco and later a summons issued alleging an offence under section 78 of the Finance Act 2005. The Court of Appeal judgment addressed the validity of the laws; it did not decide whether Galvin committed the alleged offence.
Galvin argued that the tobacco offence was too complex or unclear, imposed liability without requiring the prosecution to prove intent, and could expose him to a conviction without access to the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. He said a conviction could put his An Post job at risk. The State opposed the challenge, arguing the provisions were lawful and that the employment consequences were uncertain.
The court held that the offence was neither so complex nor so unclear that it could not operate constitutionally. It said a person exercising reasonable due diligence could find out what the law required, and noted that Galvin had not made enquiries about his obligations before advertising the tobacco. The court also concluded that the offence was one of strict liability and that the absence of a requirement to prove intent did not, in itself, deny a trial in due course of law. It identified possible defences in principle, including a reasonable belief, after due diligence, that an exemption or suspension arrangement applied; it found Galvin had not claimed either.
The court rejected the challenge to the exclusion of the Probation Act, relying on prior decisions that upheld the sentencing framework and found a range of sentencing options remained available. It said the court that might sentence Galvin would decide the appropriate penalty; the Court of Appeal did not determine that penalty.
On employment, the court found the evidence did not establish that dismissal was certain. It said possible job consequences could be considered by a sentencing court, but did not make the statutory scheme unconstitutional or disproportionate. The court dismissed all grounds of appeal. McCarthy and Kennedy JJ agreed.