Sir, - Court poor-box fines have been in the news of late. While it has no statutory basis, this system has crept into our district courts as a means of dealing with occasional, exceptional cases - for instance, if a young boy took his father's car and drove it a short distance on the public road, did not cause any serious damage but was detected by a garda. Because of his age, he would have no insurance cover, and let us suppose that he is prosecuted for that offence, and that he attends the court and pleads guilty. This means that according to law, at the very least, he must be convicted and have his licence endorsed, and he would have this on his record, with all the consequences which that entails.
Most, I think, would agree that such penalties are too severe and out of proportion to the offence. Judges found a way out of this difficulty by allowing the young man to pay a small sum into the court poor box and then struck out the case. The judge would then dispose of the money to some deserving charity. Few ever questioned this, mainly, one supposes, because such cases were very rare, and justice was seen to be done.
However, something quite different seems to be happening nowadays. It appears that over £305,000 was paid into court poor-boxes throughout the State last year. At one reported court sitting, over 30 motorists who exceeded the speed limit (some, it would appear, at speeds of well over 100 m.p.h.) were reported as having paid in some £20,000 to the poor-box and were, one presumes, thereupon permitted to leave the court without a conviction, an endorsement or a suspension, and of course, without a record. It appears that the judge then distributed this £20,000 among various charities chosen by him or the payers. I also have read reports of a number of other courts where somewhat similar events were stated to have occurred.
I wonder about defendants, who were unable to cough up the required money on the spot for the poor-box. Were they convicted and fined, and possibly endorsed or suspended? If so, apart from penalties, they ended up with a record which is bound to be a substantial disadvantage to them in the future. I expect that many will find this whole situation somewhat bizarre. Personally, I find it is really surprising that the State does not appear to have challenged any of these decisions.
Deserving charities are entitled to all the help they can get, but the haphazard poor-box system is certainly not the way to help them. If charities are not properly funded, that is not the business of the judiciary. Any funding should be properly done by the State in an equitable and controlled manner.
I maintain that money taken by the District Court in lieu of fines is, or certainly should be, the property of the State, just like ordinary fines, and judges should not be able to ignore this and pay over such money to some charity which they or the payers favour. To be frank, this is simply playing Santa Claus with money that is not their own. There is a compelling argument which says that those who use the system, with certain exceptions, are in effect assisting people who can afford it to buy their way out of convictions, and possible endorsements and suspensions.
In my view, district judges who use the poor-box, should direct that all moneys paid in be credited to the Exchequer in lieu of fines, because that is precisely what they are. - Yours, etc.,
From P. J. Brennan
(retired district court judge), Claremorris, Co Mayo.