Historically, Manx criminal law dealt harshly with vagrants and vagabonds. By the earliest customary law they were liable to presentment and expulsion from the Isle (Vagabonds [1505] QP; see also Customary Laws 1422 s.97) . Later, those unable to show that they were “blind, maimed or decrepit” were forced into service by the Servant’s Jury (Deemster Parr’s Abstract para. 45.01). With the demise of the Servants Jury, this became defunct. Additionally, it appears that the customary law recognised an offence of being of a notorious demeanour in the neighbourhood (Cormish [1673] L.S.), and from a very early date drunkards were liable to punishment as in misdemeanour (Parr’s Abstract 45.01) In 1896 a number of vagrancy misdemeanours were created. The 1896 Act was based on an English statute of 1824 (the Vagrancy Act 1824), as was the amending legislation the Vagrancy Act 1906 s.2 (based on the Vagrancy Act 1898).
English law continued to change after the early 20th century however. The Vagrancy Act 1935, for instance, provided that a person ought to be apprehended under the rough sleeping provision only when they had lodging available but refused it. The Police, Crime, Sentencing Courts Act 2021 provides for the 1824 Act – the equivalent of the Manx 1896 Act – to be repealed in full: including the provision making begging an offence (s.3) and that which creates a range of offences including persons who sleep in an outdoor setting, or an unoccupied building (s.4). The relevant section has yet to be brought into effect, as the Home Office wishes to have replacement legislation in place first. The delay in bringing this provision into force has been queried in the House of Commons.
So, while a specific vagrancy law is on the way out in England, it is still in effect. Reflecting the changes made to English law in the twentieth century, even this moribund Act is less severe than the 1896 Manx Act. Begging in a public place and sleeping rough, despite the reference in the extant text of the 1824 Act to up to one month imprisonment, are no longer offences which can carry a prison term: “the court shall not have power to sentence him to imprisonment” (Criminal Justice Act 1982 s.70). Additionally, most of the specific ways of offending under the 1824 Act have been repealed (for more details see here). In the Manx legislation, the ways to be a vagrant remain wide ranging, and much closer to the 1824 Act as passed: fortune telling (subject to the protection of the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1952), being a prostitute in a public place and behaving in a riotous or indecent manner; rough sleeping without a visible means of subsistence “and not giving a good account of himself”; exposing an obscene picture, print, or other indecent exhibition in a public place; “wandering abroad and endeavouring, by the exposure of wounds and deformities, to obtain or gather alms”, betting in a public place; being armed with an offensive weapon; being found in a building or garden “for any unlawful purpose”; and – my personal favourite – “Being a suspected person or reputed thief, and frequenting any river, or dock, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway, or any place adjacent to a street or highway for any unlawful act.” (Vagrancy Act 1896 s.2).
The emphasis on this legislation – in contrast to more recent criminal legislation – is less on what the defendant does, and more on what they are; on “being a vagrant” as shown by the activities in section 2. Section 2 concludes with a sharp emphasis on this: “Provided always, that in proving an intent with respect to any of the said offences, it shall not be necessary to show that the person accused or suspected of being guilty of any such offences, was guilty of any particular act tending to show his purpose or intent; but he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, and from his known character as proved to the court, it appears to the court that his intent was to commit an unlawful act, as the case may be”.
Prosecution may be at the suit of constables, “or of any person aggrieved” (s.4); and “any person may apprehend without warrant anyone offending against this Act” (s.5). Punishment on the face of the statute is a period of imprisonment of up to 3 months, and the court may order forfeiture of any instrument or article which “constitutes, or forms part of such offence” (s.3). Despite the reference only to imprisonment, in Manx law a court of summary jurisdiction has the option, where an Act gives the power only to sentence to imprisonment, to instead impose a fine of up to £5000 (Summary Jurisdiction Act 1989 s.25(3)).
It is striking how in England many of the 1824 provisions have been whittled away even before the Act is finally repealed – not necessarily by making a particular activity lawful, but instead by regulating it in specific legislation. In England, the provisions dealing with exposing an indecent print in a public place were removed by the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, which created its own offences (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/42/section/1). The Manx version of this offence can be found in the Sexual Offences and Obscene Publications Act 2021 s.97 and will, when it comes into effect, use the same strategy by removing harms regulated under the 2021 Act from the Vagrancy Act. It may be worth reviewing the remaining provisions of the Vagrancy Act in this light.
Peter Edge's Law Blog. 