The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to a woman’s conviction for obstructing pedestrians while begging in Dublin, and to the 14-day prison sentence that was suspended for 12 months.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 9 February 2021, concerned an incident at the junction of South Great Georges Street and Dame Street on 30 March 2018. Garda Joe O’Connor told the District Court he saw the applicant begging while seated on the ground. He said pedestrians had to step onto the road to pass her. The judgment records that she denied having a permit when asked and agreed to move, but was still there when the garda returned about 15 minutes later.
The charge sheet described her as obstructing the free passage of people on a footpath “causing annoyance” and said she had no licence or permit. At a hearing on 30 November 2018, the District Court judge deleted the wording after “footpath”, including those references. The applicant’s counsel had argued that the charge was invalid because it combined distinct offences and that the judge lacked authority to amend it on her own initiative. The prosecution had said the wording was surplus and had not sought an amendment.
The High Court held that the charge remained one recognised by law under section 2(b) of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2011, though defectively framed. Under the District Court Rules, a judge could amend a charge or proceed as if a defect did not exist, provided the accused was not misled or prejudiced in a way affecting the case. The court said the prosecution was never required to prove “causing annoyance”; its inclusion did not add an element to the offence. It found no prejudice and rejected the claim that the District Court judge’s action showed bias.
The applicant was convicted after the District Court heard Garda O’Connor’s evidence and submissions. On 7 December 2018, she received 14 days’ imprisonment, fully suspended for 12 months, on condition she did not beg anywhere in the jurisdiction. The High Court also rejected her challenge to the sentencing remarks, which referred to the possibility that other people were influencing or using her. The judge considered those comments in light of the defence mitigation about possible alternative employment, and concluded that the sentence did not show an improper purpose.
The High Court dismissed the judicial review proceedings. It did not quash or alter the District Court order.