Definition of Crime (CASES)

Melling v O’Mathghamhna [1962] IR 1.

• The plaintiff, Peter Melling, was charged in the District Court on fifteen charges, all of which were of a similar nature, relating to the smuggling of butter into the State.
• The court had to determine if this amounted to a criminal charge.
• The Supreme Court held it did. Kingsmill Moore J. held that a criminal charge could be identified by three elements:-
• a) offences committed must be against the community at large and not against an individual
• b) the punitive nature of the sanction
• c) the requirement of mens rea, for the act must be done knowingly.

McLoughlin v Tuite [1986] IR 235; [1989] IR 82.

• The plaintiff was required by notice issued by the first defendant (an Inspector of Taxes) to deliver returns of income for certain income tax years. The plaintiff failed to comply with the notice within the time specified. The first defendant sued the plaintiff, claiming penalties which arose under s. 500 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, by virtue of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the terms of the notice.
• The court used the decision in Melling’s case to see if the indicia of a criminal offence are present.
• (a ) Whether there is a crime against the community”If an offence must of necessity be implied by reason of the existence of a penalty, therefore it would be an offence against the community at large and not against an individual. The fact that the Inspector of Taxes can sue in his own name does not mean that he is entitled as an individual to the money. It is the Central Fund which is entitled to the penalty, i.e., the community at large.”(b ) Whether the sanction is punitive, and failure to pay involves imprisonment

  “The sanction is first of all coercive. It is calculated to make taxpayers send in their returns within a limited time for fear of having to pay a penalty. If the coercive element does not work then it becomes punitive. I do not think it could be argued that a penalty of £500 for failure to make each return was not punitive. It is a penalty which is intended to pinch. However, if the penalty is not paid there is no provision for imprisonment.”

  (c ) Whether mens rea is required

  “As to the existence of mens rea , it is not an ingredient in a failure to make a return of income. The penalty arises for failure to make a return, not because of a deliberate decision not to make a return. The fact that the liability to pay the penalty does not cease on death but continues against the estate of the deceased, indicates that mens rea is absent.”

• Judgment was duly entered in favour of the first defendant.

People (DPP) v Boyle [1993] ILRM 128.

• The defendant was a registered bookmaker.
• Under section 24(1) of the Finance Act 1982 all bookmakers were required to pay a duty on every bet entered into. Failure to do so would result in an excise penalty of up to £500 under s.24(5).
• The court held, following Melling, that the provision was a criminal offence.