The High Court has quashed the conviction and €500 fine imposed on a woman who pleaded guilty to changing the price tag on sunglasses, after finding that her two co-accused were treated differently without a relevant distinction identified in the evidence.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2012, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the District Court had dismissed the charges against the other two defendants under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, while convicting the applicant. The affidavit evidence before the High Court said the co-accused were unemployed and the applicant was working. All three had pleaded guilty and had no previous convictions.
The incident took place at TK Maxx in Blanchardstown. The applicant was charged over changing the price tag on sunglasses priced at €34.99 to one showing €16.99. Her two companions, identified in the judgment only as AB and RD, faced similar charges involving the same incident.
The High Court rejected the argument that the applicant was unlawfully punished simply for working. The judge said her employment and means could be considered when setting a fine, and that a €500 fine was not in itself irrational or unreasonable. The central issue, he said, was that the applicant alone left court with a conviction, while her co-accused had their charges dismissed.
Justice Peart said the evidence disclosed no relevant distinction between the three defendants beyond the applicant’s employment. Being unemployed was not, by itself, a valid basis under the Probation Act for dismissing the other charges while withholding the same treatment from her. He said that absent a relevant distinction or a proven fact taking the applicant outside the Act’s criteria, equality of treatment required the District Judge to apply the Act to her as well.
The respondents argued that the complaint should have been pursued by an appeal to the Circuit Court. The High Court rejected that objection, finding that an appeal limited to the severity of the fine would not address the applicant’s central complaint: that she had been convicted while the others had not. Judicial review could provide a remedy by quashing the order.
The court granted an order of certiorari quashing the conviction and fine made on 17 October 2011. It did not grant the separate declaration sought that people facing the same charge should be treated in the same manner. The judgment did not decide whether the co-accused had been entitled to the benefit of the Probation Act.