The High Court ruled that an offence under the Litter Pollution Act 1997 for failing to keep certain land free from visible litter imposed absolute liability. The court held that the applicant could not defend the charge by showing he had taken reasonable care or acted with due diligence.
The judicial review was brought by John Reilly, a joint occupier of the Voyager Bar in Cobh. He challenged a District Court decision dated 23 February 2005, which found the facts proved against him but dismissed the charge under the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. The District Court ordered him to pay €50 in costs.
The prosecution arose after a litter warden found cigarette ends outside the premises on 10 September 2004. Reilly said he arranged for the pavement to be swept daily around noon, weather permitting, but it had not been swept on the morning in question or the night before. At the District Court hearing, the judge ruled that evidence about efforts to keep the pavement clean was irrelevant to whether the offence was proved, though it could be considered when deciding the penalty.
Reilly argued in the High Court that reasonable care or due diligence should be a defence. The Attorney General opposed that position. Justice McCarthy concluded that, even if such a defence were available, Reilly could not establish it on the evidence: the pavement had not been swept after the premises closed, and the court found no explanation for that. On that basis, he lacked standing to challenge the provision’s constitutionality, so the court did not decide the constitutional question.
The judge nevertheless addressed the liability issue because the charge remained pending and Reilly was entitled to know the legal elements before his appeal. The court considered the statute’s terms, the ease of complying with the duty, the difficulty of enforcement, and the public interest in reducing litter. It concluded that the offence was one of absolute liability, meaning proof of the prohibited failure was sufficient and no reasonable-care defence applied.
The judgment also extended the time for bringing the judicial review to 17 July 2006. It did not quash the District Court order or determine the pending appeal. The source records that Reilly had appealed to the Circuit Court; the High Court judgment addressed the legal classification of the offence ahead of that appeal.