Mandatory fine for sale of unstamped tobacco is upheld

Court of Appeal upholds the High Court's dismissal of an appeal challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Finance Acts, which impose penalties for the sale of unstamped tobacco products. The appellant, a postal operative, faced criminal charges for attempting to sell tobacco without the required tax stamp. He contended that sections of the Finance Acts were unconstitutional and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), arguing that the legislation was overly complex and lacked clarity, making it difficult for individuals to understand their legal obligations. The appellant also claimed that the strict liability nature of the offense, which does not require proof of mens rea (criminal intent), was disproportionate and infringed upon his right to a fair trial. Additionally, he argued that the exclusion of the Probation Act's application to the offense was irrational and disproportionate, potentially jeopardizing his employment with An Post if convicted. The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appellant's arguments, affirming that the legislation in question is not unconstitutionally complex or vague and that the offense's classification as one of strict liability is appropriate for regulatory offenses such as this. The court also held that the mandatory fine imposed by the legislation is not disproportionate and does not breach the separation of powers principle. The appellant's concern about the potential loss of employment was acknowledged, but the court ruled that this did not render the legislation unconstitutional or disproportionate.