Gript’s Fatima Gunning wrote about the ongoing levels of ‘professional begging’ plaguing the Westport-Belmullet Municipal District, as well as the claims by Westport Cllr. Christy Hylland that many of those involved are in receipt of up to €3,000 per month in state benefits including housing in Castlebar.
In its coverage of the issue the Mayo News also quoted the comments of Director of Services at Mayo County Council Catherine McConnell when she said that the Council do not have the authority to move people on if they are begging as this is the job of the local gardaí:
“We have zero powers and cannot tell them to desist from begging. The Gardaí do and the Gardaí should if they are causing a nuisance or frightening people. We need to be clear that we are not reluctant to do something, but we have no power and bylaws will not confer us with that power,” she said.
She is of course, absolutely correct. In fact, legislation on this this issue has been in place for the last 177 years ever since the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847.
Mercifully however we don’t have to go back that far as the Public Order Act 2011 covers most of what we are dealing with here.
This Act defines begging as “requesting or soliciting money or goods other than in accordance with a licence, permit or authorisation,” while Section 2 of the Act provides that “it is an offence while begging in any place to harass, intimidate, assault or threaten any other person or persons, or obstruct the passage of persons or vehicles.”
In relation to Director of Services Catherine McConnell has said, we need only look at Section 3 of the 2011 Act.
This section gives the Garda Síochána the power to direct persons begging in certain places such as near or at entrances to business premises, ATM machines or vending machines to desist and leave the vicinity in a peaceable and orderly manner. A person who contravenes a direction under this section is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of up to €500.
Meanwhile, Section 4 of the Act gives the Garda Síochána powers of arrest without warrant where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under this legislation has been committed.
Interestingly, within the context of the ‘professional begging’ claims made by Cllr Hylland, the Act also lays down severe sanctions for the arrest of those who “controls or directs the actions of another person for the purposes of begging, or who (b) organises or is materially involved in the organisation of begging by another person, or who (c) forces another person to beg, or who (d) otherwise causes another person to beg.
Conviction on indictment under (b) for instance carries a hefty fine of up to €200,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.
There is also additional legislation specific to the use of children in begging, such as that outlined in Section 247 of the Children Act 2001.
This section notes that “it is an offence to procure a child to beg or to allow a child to beg where that child is in the offender’s custody, charge or care.” In that sense the offence is directed at those adults who use children for begging, not the begging in and of itself.
There are very few reports available for convictions under any of the sections in any of the Acts referred to above.
Indeed, one of the only results from a search for convictions is a case from 2013, when the Irish Times reported how a man who said he resorted to begging so as to be able to feed himself, won a High Court order overturning his conviction and €300 fine for begging:
“Raju Rostas pleaded guilty last March to one charge of begging under Section 2 of the 2011 Criminal Justice Public Order Act at Bray District Court but was convicted of two offences of begging under that section. In High Court proceedings, Mr Rostas, represented by Micheal O’Higgins SC, challenged both the conviction and sentence on grounds including that Judge Kennedy erred in law in failing to have any regard for his means and ability to pay the fines. Because Mr Rostas’s ability to pay the fines was “nil”, it was inevitable he would serve a period of imprisonment and Judge Kennedy acted unreasonably in the matter, it was argued.”