The Gazette 1967/71

Appeal. The court doubted whether it had any jurisdiction to grant legal aid in the circumstances, and asked the Attorney-General to argue the matter. The reason for this was that Section 4 (3) of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962, specifically states that the application is to be made "to the court to which the appeal from the convic tion lies". Before the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, an accused who had signed a plea of guilty, was sent forward with the plea of guilty for trial, not for sentence. In other words, as an indictment had to be pre pared, the accused could still change his plea from "guilty" to "not guilty" in the higher court. Under the 1967 Act the applicant is merely sent forward to the Circuit Court for sentence; it follows that the Circuit Court is henceforth merely a court of sentence. Since there was no trial on indictment of the applicant in the Circuit Court, there is no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal—there were only written pleas of guilty in the District Court. If a person pleads to an indictable offence in the Dictrict Court, and is subsequently sentenced in the Circuit Court, he has no right of appeal to any court. This is an omission which it is hoped the legislature will rectify. [People v Liam Tyrrell; Court of Criminal Appeal (McLoughlin, Henchy and Pringle J-J-); Unreported; 22 June 1970.] Mrs. Justice Lane ordered the Spanish owners of the vessel "Monte Ulia", against whom claims running into millions of pounds are being made following an accident at Coryton Jetty, Shell- haven, in the Thames estuary, to release six of the seven vessels belonging to the owners of the "Banco", the vessel they allege caused the accident. The seven ships had been arrested by the Admir alty Marshal in various ports in Britain as security for any damages. Her Ladyship decided that Section 3 (4) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, limited Admiralty jurisdiction to the arrest of only one ship as security, either the offending ship or one of her sister ships but not both. [Vacation Court; 14 August 1970.] 80 SHIPPING Arrested Ships must be Released

a decree to the plaintiff for damages, it was held that the appeal should be allowed. The plaintiff purchased an old dwellinghouse in Bangor; there had been a cottage adjoining this, but it had been demolished before the purchase. Shortly afterwards, damp penetrated the wall, causing damage to the plaster and decoration in the adjoining rooms. There was a claim for an injunction to compel the defendant to lay a damp proof course along the wall. The defendant contends that the plaintiff has no easement entitling him to have the wall protected and relies on Phipps v Pears (1965) 1 Q.B. 76. In Cheshire on Real Property, tenth edition, 473, it is stated that "a person is without a remedy if his premises have been exposed to damp and frost owing to the demolition of an adjacent house, for there can be no easement of protection against the weather, consequently the plaintiff cannot rely on the breach of any obligation to prevent rainwater from penetrating the gable wall based on an easement." As the danger was fully apparent to the plaintiff at the time of the purchase, there can be no claim based on negligence in the work of demolition, which occurred before the purchase. The claim that the condition of the part of the dividing wall belonging to the defendant constitutes a nuisance by reason of its porous condition is rejected, for it is a natural and reasonable use of land, upon which there is an old and decrepit building, to demolish it, and if, in consequence, rainwater penetrates through the wall of an adjoining house which had previously been protected by the old building, the damage so caused does not constitute a nuisance. [Giltrap v Bushy; Northern Ireland High Court; Gibson J.; Unreported; 5 June 1970.] LEGAL AID Application for Free Legal Aid in Order to Appeal against Severe Sentence not Maintainable The applicant had signed a plea of guilty of five indictable charges in the District Court, including shopbreaking, larceny and robbery. In accordance with Section 13 (2) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, the applicant was sent forward for sentence to the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, where Judge McGivern in October 1969 sentenced him to three years penal servitude concurrent on each of the five charges. An application for leave to appeal, and an application for a legal aid (appeal) certificate, were made to the Court of Criminal