The Gazette 1967/71

was secretary the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines Ltd. was in admissible. The court also found that the applicant had not discharged the burden of proof required of him that "the request for his return ... is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his ... political opinions" (Section4) (1) (b) or that "he might, if returned ... be detained or restricted ... by reason of his political opinions'' (section 1). [In Re Fernandez—Court of Appeal— T/ie Times —6 Ferbuary 1971.] It is not proper to impose a suspended sentence, whether consecutive or concurrent, when a borstal training order is already in force. The object of sentencing to borstal training was to reform and rehabilitate, and until one had undergone the borstal training it could not be said that a deterrent was needed against committing a crime in the future. [Regina v Baker—Court of Appeal— The Times— 26 January 1971.] An Act passed in 1970 to impose minimum sentences of imprisonment for certain offences "during the period of the present emergency" was held by a majority of the House of Lords to have taken away the courts' power to order suspended sentences for young offenders which was conferred for the first time by the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, leaving as the only relief for such persons the exercise of the royal prerogative. [Kennedy v Spratt—House of Lords— The Times —5 February 1971.] Damages In exceptional cases interest on general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities negligently caused may be awarded from a date not earlier than service or issue of the writ in an action but even earlier than a letter before action. Mr. Justice Mars-Jones stated. Exceptional cases would include those where the plaintiff had not issued proceedings earlier because he was suffering under an incapacity or where the defendant had fraudulently concealed facts on which the cause of action might be based. [Chadwick v Parsons—Queen's Bench Division— The Times— 27 January 1971.] Small Award Adequate Jury awards £890 for personal injuries—Plaintiff of 29 suffered damage to his right index finger from a blow of a crowbar in Ardee—Te resumed work 16 weeks after the accident at his pre-accident wages; his loss of wages amounted to £120. The general damages of £750 was held bv a majority of the Supreme Court (Haugh, Walsh, Budd and Fitzgerald J.J.) not to be so low as to be inadequate, as collective view of fury is preferable to that of an individual party, and no objection had been made to High Court Judge's charge. The Chief justice, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, as the award does not fairly reflect the extent and manager, legal affairs, to

of the lack of amenity which the plaintiff suffers, and of his future disability as a farm labourer. [Murphy v Filgate—Supreme Court—Unreported— 5 July 1966.] Diplomatic Privilege An Indian nuclear diplomatic passport and a physicist with Costa Rican letter of credence to the effect that he was to be identified as economic adviser to Cost Rica in special mission was not entitled to diplomatic privilege and immunity from arrest for extradition to India on criminal charges of breach of trust, forgery and falsification of accounts involving nearly £lm. [Hegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison and others ex parte Teja—Queen's Bench Division— The Times— 20 January 1971. alleged to infringe plaintiff's right of support to his premises, which subsided. Defendants are also alleged to have caused physical damage, and, by raising the height of their premises, to have obstructed the pre scriptive right to light of the plaintiff. The premises concerned are held under a fee farm grant in Carlow. Teevan J. was satisfied that the earlier alterations were calculated to diminish the support of the individual buildings. The root cause of the cracking complained of should be traced to the 1970 alteration. The damage caused to the plaintiff's kitchen, assessed at £59, was caused by water following disconnection by defendants of a waste pipe. The claim for diminution of light arises from the reconstruction of a wall. Physically the old wall stood entirely on plaintiff's property^ and defendants had by user and acquiesence acquired the right to use this wall as one of the side walls of their extended premises. The plaintiff permitted the defendants to proceed with their building without pro test, save as to its height. Consequenly there was no trespass. It was agreed that the new wall would not exceed the average height of the old wall. The excess height is therefore in violation of the agreement come to between the parties. As regards diminution of light, there is no doubt but that the plaintiff's rooms were very poorlv lighted by daylight before the, defendant's reconstruction. But a further diminution of light has been caused by the increased height of the side and rear walls; here the defendants proceeded with their building to the heights, in excess of agreement, and even in the face of timely warning. This is not however a case for an injunction, but for damages, as the plain tiff has benefited considerably by the new walls. Damages were assessed at £750 subject to the defendants being allowed to abate the nuisance, in which case the damages would be diminished. Accordingly judgment was awarded to the plaintiffs for £981 with liberty to either party to apply in relation to outstanding matters. [Byrne v Dunnes Stores (Waterford Ltd.—Teevan J. —Unreported—1 July 1968.] 197 EASEMENT Infringement of Right to Light Defendants, in reconstructing their premises, were