The High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge to an offence of committing an act contrary to public decency in a public place, finding that the offence was not impermissibly vague.
Tezaur Bita had been charged under section 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Amendment Act 1871, alongside a separate charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. The judgment says the alleged background was that, in the early hours of 27 August 2015, Bita urinated on a public footpath after parking and leaving a car. A garda witnessed the incident. The evidence differed on the precise location in relation to the footpath and nearby bushes.
Bita argued that “contrary to public decency” was subjective, vague and incapable of definition. He also argued that public urination itself was being treated as an offence, and that the summary nature of the charge meant there would be no jury to assess the standard of decency. The State submitted that the phrase expressed an objective standard comparable to “indecent” in other offences that had survived constitutional challenges.
Justice Ní Raifeartaigh held that Bita had standing to bring the case because he had been charged and his argument was grounded in his own circumstances. She nevertheless agreed with earlier judges that judicial review was disproportionate when the District Court could potentially resolve the matter more quickly and at lower cost.
On the constitutional question, the judge found no substantive difference between “indecent” and an act “contrary to public decency”. She said both phrases invoke an objective standard based on an ordinary or reasonable member of the public. Public urination could be contrary to public decency in some circumstances and not in others; that variability did not make the offence itself unconstitutionally vague.
The judgment expressly left guilt as a separate question. It cited earlier observations that public urination may be indecent if done indiscreetly, while the circumstances matter. The High Court refused the relief sought. It did not determine whether Bita committed the offence.