Two men due to be tried before the criminal courts for allegedly flying their drones too close to Dublin Airport have launched High Court challenges against the constitutionality of the legislation under which they are charged.
The two separate actions, where similar legal points are raised, have been brought by Ainis Guzauskas and Eric Brils.
They claim that if they are found guilty of offences under the 1975 Air Navigation and Transport Act they cannot get a suspended sentence from the courts.
Section 6 of the Act expressly prohibits any suspension of any sentence they might receive or the application of the Probation Act, they claim.
This, they allege, amounts to "a disproportionate" and "draconian" interference with their personal rights to a fair trial and is unconstitutional.
Section 6 of the Act, it is also submitted, does not display the rational connection between the gravity of the offence and the requirements of justice.
They claim that while mandatory minimum sentences are permissible under Irish law, they must be all capable of meeting the justice of each and every case where they apply.
Mr Guzauskas, a furniture mover of Ridgewood Close, Swords, Co Dublin, is charged before the Circuit Criminal Court under section 3 of the 1975 Air Navigation and Transport Act for flying his drone near the airport on July 2nd, 2022.
It is alleged that his activity unlawfully and intentionally interfered with the operation of air navigation at the airport.
Mr Brils, a company employee of Holywell Dale, Swords, Co Dublin, is facing a similar charge for allegedly flying his drone near the airport on January 24th, 2023.
Both were sent forward to the Circuit Court after they entered pleas of not guilty.
Represented by Mark Lynam SC, appearing with Keith Spencer BL and instructed by solicitor Donal Quigley, the two accused submit that any penalty handed down by a court of law must be "proportionate" to the gravity of the offence.
Mr Lynam said the 1975 Act is legislation that was enacted almost 50 years ago, and is designed to deal with offences that were prevalent at that time such as "aircraft hijackings."
The applicability of activities in the relevant part of the 1975 Act to "drones piloted by hobbyists" was not something that was contemplated by the Oireachtas, they further submit.
In their judicial review proceedings against the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ireland and the Attorney General the applicants seek various orders and declarations from the court.
These include orders preventing their further prosecution for offences under Section 3 of the 1975 Act before the Circuit Criminal Court.
They also seek declarations from the court that Section 6 of the 1975 Act is incompatible with the Constitution and the State's obligations to enact laws that are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Their cases both came before Ms Justice Niamh Hyland on Monday.
The judge, on an ex-parte basis, granted both applicants permission to bring their actions.
The cases will return before the court next month.
