The High Court ruled that a man detained after failing to pay a €2,750 fine for cigarette-related offences was in lawful custody, rejecting his challenge to the District Court’s order and to the law under which he was charged.
Mr Justice Eagar delivered the judgment on 16 February 2015 in an application under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution. The inquiry concerned the applicant’s detention. The court held that the District Court’s order was valid and sufficient to detain him.
The judgment says the applicant, a Moldovan national, was arrested at Dublin Airport on 21 January 2015 while attempting to bring cigarettes into Ireland without paying excise duty. He was charged with three offences under section 119 of the Finance Act 2001, as amended.
He appeared in the District Court on 28 January and indicated a guilty plea after the charges were deemed suitable for summary disposal. The judgment says it was unclear from his solicitor’s affidavit whether he pleaded guilty to one or all three charges. The District Court initially set bail conditions, including a cash lodgement and an independent surety, which he could not meet. The High Court considered those conditions reasonable in the circumstances.
At a further hearing on 4 February, the District Court imposed a €2,750 fine, payable immediately, with 25 days’ imprisonment in default. The applicant’s counsel argued that refusing time to pay was disproportionate, unreasonable and unfair, and that community service should have been considered. The High Court noted that the applicant had already had two weeks to raise the money and rejected those arguments, describing community service as unrealistic in the circumstances.
The applicant also argued that the relevant law was unconstitutional. Mr Justice Eagar rejected that challenge, noting that the offences and penalties were in the Finance Act and that the legislation was provided for under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, concerning money bills.
The judgment records the finding that the applicant was lawfully detained. It does not state whether he had paid the fine or completed the 25-day term by the date of judgment.