Court Service figures - Use of the court ‘poor box’ a bit rich

The use of the “poor box” to avoid criminal convictions and fines is a strange, bizarre and constitutionally dubious practice that has become increasingly part of judicial

Figures from the Courts Service show €1,533,610 went to needy causes in lieu of fines or convictions for mostly minor offences across district courts in 2016, a rise of €200,000 on the 2015 figure. Sixty percent involved road-traffic offences.

Unlike normal fines or convictions, there is little or no

consistency in its use. In fact, there is a wide disparity from one district court area to another. For instance, almost one third of the poor box money, amounting to almost €400,000, was paid in one district last year while the figure for another was barely €11,000.

Neither is there any real transparency or proper oversight of the practice. The option of donating to the poor box in lieu of, or to mitigate, a conviction and fine is at the discretion of the judge.

It is still used in some districts for motoring offences, despite the fact that the 2010 Road Traffic Act prohibits its use for offences that attract penalty points, including speeding. This legislation made the imposition of penalty points and a fine mandatory on conviction.

District judges were reminded of this prohibition by the High Court in a 2014 case taken by a driver who had been refused the use of the poor box after speeding. Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the district court “enjoys no jurisdiction to impose an informal sanction, short of actual conviction, such as accepting a donation to the poor box”.

He described such a donation as amounting to an “indirect circumvention” of the law. Despite this ruling which was sent to all district court judges, the practice persists, with Department of Justice figures showing that more than 1,500 drivers avoided penalty points between 2014 and May 2015 after they made a poor box donation.

The judge also has total discretion over where the money goes. He or she may decide that it should go to a registered Irish-based local charity but there is no obligation to do so.

In fact, more than €200,000 was donated to charitable purposes overseas last year in one district alone, denying local charities of a bigger slice of the pot and the Irish exchequer of the benefit of court fines or any tax that may accrue from donations received.

There have been moves to scrap the poor box, the use of which predates the foundation of the State and whose origins are obscure. In 2005, the Law Reform Commission recommended it be replaced with a statutory financial reparation order, a system favoured by former justice minister Alan Shatter. Yet it continues.

It has been justified in some quarters by the fact that it helps to fund good causes who often rely on it. That may be so but the prime function of a district judge is to enforce the law, not to act as a charity fundraiser or an all-year-round Santa Claus. No desire to aid charities can justify such a gross mcircumvention of the criminal justice system.