The Gazette 1964/67

sional advisers at an earlier stage in the proceed ings so as not to leave their investigation and preparation in unskilled hands. The present case and the experience which he had had in other cases indicated that delays of this character were very much too frequent in cases sponsored by trade unions. He felt, however, that if this matter was drawn to the attention of the unions and they realized, that the Courts were fully appreci ative of the value of the work which they did in these circumstances on behalf of their members, they would take steps to put the matter right. If there were no improvement in the conduct of the unions in the matter, it might well be that the Courts would be compelled to deprive a suc cessful plaintiff of some part of his costs. It is likely that this case should be of interest to solicitors who are concerned in personal injury actions where the plaintiff is a member of a trade union and proceeds with the support of his union. (Horsier v Alexander Bruce (Grays) L.T.D. (1966) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 30 and I.L.T.R.S.J. (Vol C)— Journal, p. 345). Fugitive Offender—Irish Warrant A warrant was issued by a Justice of a District Court in Ireland for the arrest of the applicant who was charged with wilfully neglecting his children contrary to certain statutes. A judicial authority certified that the warrant was a warrant of arrest, and that the offence of child neglect was an indictable offence in Ireland. On pro duction of the warrant and proof that the person named therein was believed to be v/ithin his area, an English magistrate automatically endor sed the warrant for execution, exercising his powers under Section 1 (1) of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965. The applicant was arrested by the metropolitan police and brought before the magistrate, who ordered him to be detained with a view to being returned to Ireland. The applicant, who was granted bail, applied for leave to move for a writ of habeas corpus, contending, inter alia, that the order for his detention was invalid by reason of irregular ities in the procedure laid down by the Act of 1965, in particular that the requirements of para graph 3 of the Schedule in regard to safeguards of the person accused had not been complied with :— Held (1) that the magistrate was under an obligation to endorse the warrant once the mat ters in Section 1 (1) were proved, subject only to the exceptions specified in subsections (2) and (3) and, that subsection (4) was not an exception to that obligation but merely stated that effects of the endorsement once it was made and that, ac­

cordingly, no inquiry into the merits had to be held as to whether there was a strong and probable presumption of guilt of the alleged offence. Reg. v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Hammond (1965) A.C. 810; applied. (2) That the words "corresponding with any offence" in Section 2 (2) referred to the in gredients of the offence and not to its classification as indictable, summary and indictable, or sum mary only, so that there was jurisdiction to make the order notwithstanding that the offence ol child neglect was indictable only in Ireland where as in England it was both an indictable and a summary offence, and that the procedure ad opted complied with the provisions laid down in paragraph 3 of the Schedule; and that therefore, the order was valid. (3) That the Court was in a position to entertain the application nothwithstanding that the applicant was on bail, having regard in par ticular to section 5 (3). Regina v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex Parte Arkins (1966) 1 W.L.R., p. 1593). I have been directed by the Council to make further representations against the recent practice of the Land Commission of attaching a condition of obtaining plan ning permission when giving consent to subdivision under Section 12 of the Land Act 1965. It is provided by sub section (2) of the Section that the power of the Land Commission to withhold their consent shall be exercised solely to prevent the creation or continuance of holding which in the opinion of the Land Commission are not economic holdings. While sub-section (1) of Section 12 does authorise the Land Commission to attach condi tions to their consent it is submitted that any such condition must be relevant to the exercise by the Land Commission of their power under sub-section (2). It is no function of the Land Commission to concern themselves with, or enquire regarding the question of planning permission. It seems to the Council that thi: power of the Land Commission to withhold their consent should be exercised solely to prevent the creation or continuance of uneconomic holdings and is strictly limited to such cases. Apart from the above legal arguments which we think are perfectly valid ones it seems to us that the enormous practical difficulties would exist if Land Commission consents are to be conditional on planning permission being obtained. The preparation of plans, etc., to sup port an application for planning permission might take some considerable time. A further period must necessarily elapse while the appropriati; local authority is consider ing the application and if the application is refused by 95 CORRESPONDENCE LAND ACT 1965 S.12 Commissioner John Kelly. Irish Land Commission, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin 2. Dear Commissioner Kelly,