Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1986 > Select Committee on Criminal Lawlessness and Vandalism > Report No. 09 - Report on certain offences under the Vagrancy Acts

Ninth Report of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism

Report on certain offences under the Vagrancy Acts

Membership of the Committee

Dáil Deputies

Michael Woods - Chairman

Gay Mitchell - Vice Chairman

Clerk to the Committee: F.J. Brady.

Summary

The Select Committee, having reviewed the position in relation to the offences of wandering abroad, begging and drunkenness, recommends as follows:-

(i) ‘ Wandering abroad’

(a)The offence of “wandering abroad” should be abolished.

(b)A number of hostels should be set up so as to provide adequate accommodation for homeless persons.

(ii) Begging

(a)There is a need to maintain some form of criminal sanction to deal with begging.

(b)It should be an offence to beg (i) in a public place, (ii) from house to house in a manner likely to cause fear or annoyance.

(c)Where homeless persons are found guilty of begging they should be subject to non-custodial and non-monetary penalties, such as community service orders, attendance at treatment centres, compulsory residence in hostels or participation in training programmes. Breach of Court Orders in these cases could then be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

(iii) Drunkenness

(a)There should be a new offence of public drunkenness in situations where a person is a danger to themselves or to others.

(b)The offence of public drunkenness should be a non-imprisonable offence with a sanction of a fine and/or attendance at a detoxification or other therapeutic facility.

(c)Simple drunkenness in a public place where there is no danger or abuse to persons should no longer be an offence.

1. Introduction

1.1In 1984, the Committee considered decriminalising certain offences under the Vagrancy Acts and reported an interim view to the Dail in October 1984 (Third Report of the Select Committee Pl. 2697). The Committee decided to await the outcome of the deliberations of the Law Reform Commission on vagrancy and related offences and to finalise its examination of this topic at that stage. The Committee did, however, express the view that there should be an alternative to imprisonment, such as a hostel, for persons who beg and sleep rough.

1.2The Committee has re-considered this topic with the benefit of the detailed analysis contained in two Law Reform Commission Reports namely:

(i)Report on Vagrancy and Related Offences (LRC 11-1985), in so far as it relates to ‘Wandering Abroad’ and Begging, and

(ii)Report on Offences under the Dublin Police Acts and Related Offences (LRC 14-1985), in so far as it deals with offences of Drunkenness.

1.3The Committee had a meeting on 12th November, 1985 with representatives of the Simon Community to discuss the possibility of decriminalising the offences of ‘wandering abroad’, begging and drunkenness.

1.4Having considered this topic further and having had the benefit of the Law Reform Commission Reports and the views of the Simon Community, the Committee decided to report its findings to the Dail.

2. ‘Wandering Abroad’

2.1In relation to ‘Wandering Abroad’, the Law Reform Commission’s Report examined the present law and policy arguments on reform of the law. Having done this, the Commission recommended that this offence should be repealed and should not be replaced by any corresponding provision.

2.2Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, as applied to Ireland by section 15 of the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871, provides that every person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or wagon, not having any visible means of subsistence and not giving a good account of himself or herself is guilty of an offence and is liable to a maximum of three months’ imprisonment.

2.3While there are no reported Irish or English cases on the interpretation of this provision, doubts have been expressed as to its constitutionality in King v Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions (1981).

2.4Another provision that is of relevance in the context of persons ‘wandering abroad’ is section 8 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act 1851, which provides for a summary offence of trespass to land. A person found guilty of such an offence shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pence, or in default of payment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one week.

2.5The Law Reform Commission expressed the view (paragraph 6.5) that:

“The only circumstance in which there would appear to be a case for the application of the criminal law in present-day conditions would be where persons sleeping out were causing damage to property or interfering with the use or enjoyment of property or were otherwise a source of nuisance”.

2.6However, the Commission stated that it was not convinced of the need for a modern and more limited provision to replace the ‘wandering abroad’ clause (paragraph 6.9). It notes the availability of The Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878, The Malicious Damage Act, 1861, and the Health Act, 1947, to deal with situations where problems arise. The Select Committee is aware that it is proposed to amend the Malicious Damage Act. It considers that the implications of the repeal of sections of the Act which cover situations where actual damage to property is caused should be examined carefully.

2.7While Section 8 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851 only applies to land, the owner of buildings can eject a trespasser and any physical resistance constitutes an offence under section 3 of the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act, 1971. Situations where vagrants lodge and cause a nuisance in public places might still present problems where no appropriate local by-laws exist. The Law Reform Commission’s view, however, is that such situations are unlikely to warrant the application of specially designed criminal sanctions against such socially maladjusted persons. The Commission recommends that the maximum penalty for an offence of trespass to land under section 8 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851 should be increased from 50p to £500 and/or imprisonment for six months.

2.8The Select Committee agrees with the Law Reform Commission and recommends that the offence of ‘wandering abroad’ be repealed.

2.9The Select Committee considers that there is a need to establish hostels to provide adequate accommodation for homeless persons. Furthermore, where homeless persons are prosecuted for trespass, the court should have power to order such persons to reside in hostel accommodation. In addition, non-custodial and non-monetary alternatives should be available to the court to deal with such persons. This could take the form of, for example, community service orders; only in the event of a breach of any such orders should there be a sanction of a fine and/or imprisonment.

3. Begging

3.1The Law Reform Commission examined the present law in relation to begging and also the various policy arguments on the reform of the law. The Commission recommended that existing legislation be repealed and be replaced by a new provision making it an offence to beg (i) in a public place or (ii) from house to house in a manner likely to cause fear or annoyance.

3.2Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 provides for two offences of begging:

(i)wandering abroad and endeavouring by the exposure of wounds or deformities to obtain or gather alms, and

(ii)going about as a gatherer or collector of alms, or endeavouring to procure charitable contributions of any nature or kind, under any false or fraudulent pretence.

The only penalty available in respect of these offences is imprisonment - the maximum penalty being three months imprisonment.

3.3Section 3 of the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 also provides that any person wandering abroad and begging or placing himself in any public place, street, highway, court, or passage to beg or gather alms, or causing or procuring or encouraging any child or children to do so shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month.

3.4Procuring a child to beg is also an offence under certain prevention of cruelty to children provisions. Section 2 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904 provides that any person who causes to procures any child to beg is guilty of an offence. Similarly, any person who has custody or care of a child and who allows the child to beg is guilty of an offence. A child is defined as any boy under the age of fourteen years, or any girl under the age of sixteen years. The maximum penalty is a fine of £25 and/or three months imprisonment. Section 14(1) of the Children Act 1908 makes identical provision in relation to any child (defined by the Acts as meaning a person under the age of fourteen years) or young persons (defined as a person who is fourteen or over and under sixteen).

3.5The regulation of collections for a charitable object is provided for in the Street and House to House Collections Act 1962. The Act enables the Chief Superintendent of the Garda Siochana for any locality, on the application of any person who proposes to hold a collection in that locality, to grant a permit authorising the holding of the collection in the locality. The holding of unauthorised collections is prohibited.

3.6The Commission decided (paragraph 9.13):

“That some general offence should be retained as a prohibition on a form of conduct which constitutes a kind of public nuisance - a new provision should be enacted making it an offence to beg (i) in a public place, or (ii) from house to house in a manner likely to cause fear or annoyance”.

The Commission proposed new maximum penalties of £100 and/or 1 month imprisonment and £300 and/or three months imprisonment respectively for these offences.

3.7The Select Committee notes that the Law Reform Commission proposed that the offence of causing or procuring children to beg should be retained and that such a provision is included in the Children (Care and Protection) Bill, 1985.

3.8The end result of this process may be that people who beg will still end up in prison, since few may be in a position to pay the fines imposed. The recommendation that begging in a public place continues to be an offence punishable by prison runs counter to the recent Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System, chaired by Dr. T.K. Whitaker (published July, 1985). It stated:

“Imprisonment is a severe personal punishment for the offender. It is of limited protective, deterrent or corrective value.....it should be employed only as a last resort.....only if the offence is such that no other form of penalty is appropriate.....only after consideration of a full personal report on the offender from the Probation and Welfare Service, supplemented, where appropriate, by a psychological and medical/psychiatric report. [It should be reserved for] serious offences against the person and major property offences”.

3.9The Committee is concerned that, if the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission Report is adopted, the sanction of imprisonment will remain for the offence of begging. No deterrent policies appear to have worked in the past and the Committee considers that there is no reason to believe that imprisonment will be more effective in the future. Neither, however, does the Committee fully agree with the contention put forward by the Simon Community that the only causes of begging are a lack of income or lack of housing. The Committee is satisfied that a certain amount of begging is carried out on a professional basis.

3.10The Select Committee noted the view expressed in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System that:

“Some offences should be decriminalised or at least be no longer punishable by imprisonment. The Committee considers that this should happen without delay in relation to certain offences under the Vagrancy Act 1824, as recommended by the Law Reform Commission”.

3.11The Select Committee considers that there is a need for some form of sanction to be available to the authorities to deal with begging in a public place. The Select Committee agrees with the Law Reform Commission’s proposal that it be an offence to beg in a public place. The Committee does not, however, agree with the proposed sanctions of a fine and/or imprisonment. The Committee recommends that, in these cases, resort should be had to non-custodial and non-monetary penalties, such as community service orders, attendance at treatment centres, compulsory residence in hostels or participation in training programmes. Breach of Court Orders in these cases could then be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

4. Drunkenness

4.1In its Report on Offences under the Dublin Police Acts and Related Offences, the Law Reform Commission reviewed, inter alia, the existing law on offences of drunkenness, the manner in which drunkenness in public is regulated by law and the policy arguments relating to the reform of the law.

4.2The Commission considered public drunkenness to be the manifestation of a health problem and that the intervention of the criminal law would be unhelpful and inappropriate. It, accordingly, proposed that simple drunkenness in a public place, which does not involve risk of injury to the drunken person or to others, should be decriminalised (paragraph 6.4).

4.3The Commission then dealt with how to respond to a situation where a person, drunk in public, is a danger to himself or others (paragraph 6.5). It considered the procedure in New Zealand, whereby the police have the power to remove a person so found to a detoxification unit. After considering the merits of such a system, the Commission concluded that public drunkenness, in such a way as to be a danger to oneself or others, should be an offence, but a non-imprisonable offence. It proposed that there be medical and therapeutic facilities for ‘habitual drunkards’ with Court power to bind such persons to such facilities (paragraph 6.9).

In addition, the Commission recommended (paragraph 6.10) that a specific offence of ‘drunk and disorderly’ was no longer necessary. This would come within the scope of a new offence of disorderly conduct proposed by the Commission (paragraph 7.7).

4.4The Select Committee is in agreement with the Commission and recommends that there should be a new offence of public drunkenness in situations where a person is a danger to themselves or to others. This offence should be a non - imprisonable one with a sanction of a fine and/or attendance at a detoxification or other therapeutic facility. Simple drunkenness in a public place where there is no danger or abuse to persons should no longer be an offence.

5. Acknowledgement

5.1The Committee wishes to thank Mr. Brian Harvey and Ms. Fidelma Bonass of the Simon Community for their assistance in the Committee’s examination of this topic, including attending at a meeting to discuss their views.

5.2The Committee acknowledges the valuable contribution made by the Law Reform Commission in its Reports which dealt with, inter alia, Vagrancy and Drunkenness.

5.3The Committee also wishes to record is appreciation of the work of its Clerk, Mr. F.J. Brady and of its Secretary, Ms. G. Murphy.

Michael Woods T.D.

Chairman

9 April, 1986.