The Gazette 1967/71

nised rules. An extreme case was R, v Soblen — (1963) 2 Q.B. 243 — where the defendant fled to Israel after having been convicted of spying in the United States. The Israeli authorities re fused to accept him, and put him on a plane in order to return him to America. Before reaching London, he inflicted wounds on himself, and had to be treated in hospital, there the Israel airline subsequently refused to book him as a passenger for America. The Home Secretary, nevertheless, made a deportation order and this was held valid. He was subsequently sent to America but died on the way. (3) Freedom of Citizens to return to their own country. International Conventions proclaim that "no one shall be denied entry to a State of which he is a national". Nevertheless, the British Immi gration Act, 1968 denied access to Britain to Kenyan Asians, who were British subjects; the position was improved under the appeals pro cedure in the 1969 Act, but appears to be again restrictive in the 1971 Bill. Section 14 of the Irish Extradition Act, 1965 forbids the extradition of Irish citizens unless the relevant provisions apply. Part III of the Act provides for the endorsement and execution of warrants between Ireland and Britain, and has given rise to difficulties; however, the Supreme Court in "The State (Quinn) v Ryan" — (1965) I.R. 106 — has put an end to the former practice whereby the police suddenly removed an accused from the jurisdiction of the Irish Court before giving him an opportunity to test whether the extradition order was valid, which was character ised as a plan to defeat the rule of law. Under Part II of the 1965 Act, there is, how ever, no requirement that, before a person is surrendered, there must be prima facie evidence of guilt, and it would seem that, unless the accused objects to taking Court proceedings, he can be removed without reasonable grounds. It would seem that in 1963, a Mrs. Cronin was brought back to Ireland on an unjustified warrant, mean­ (4) Freedom for citizens to remain within their own country.

while she had lost her job in England. She awaited trial for 18 months and was then acquitted. The State may say to a person: "We will not proceed against you if you leave." The accused is then presented with a choice — if he refuses to go, the sentence will probably be more severe — but if he goes, he is deprived of his right of appeal against conviction. (5) Freedom to enter a State other than one's own. The control over entry into Britain of aliens is largely administrative, and this gives adminis trators a wide discretion. It will be recalled that aliens who wished to study scientology were not permitted to land in Britain. This is a dangerous and undesirable departure, which has for instance been exercised by not permitting North Viet namese to enter Britain to give lectures. The recent case, where Rudi Duschke was refused to be allowed to stay in Britain on the grounds of security, has been condemned by the Cam bridge dons, as this was merely an alleged threat to national security in the future. Britain and Ireland signed the European Social Charter, but were found to have violated Article 18 by an International Commission. If Ireland enters the European Community, she will have to observe the rules much more strictly. The problem of political asylum presents itself under two facets and this arises from the problem of "The Freedom of a Citizen to remain in an alien State." This freedom is qualified in Britain, and is always subject either to formal deportation proceedings, or to extradition proceedings at the request of the State whose national is involved. Although extradition is not granted for political, military or revenue offences, nevertheless, the concept is a difficult one. In Duggan v Tapley — (1952) I.R. — the Supreme Court held that the rules of extradition must have a definite context. There appears to be no definite principle other than sentiment for granting asylum to a political offender. In R. v Schtraks — (1964) A.C. 556, the facts were complicated, but briefly the accused was arrested in order to be deported to Israel for perjury and child stealing. He contended un successfully that the offences were of a political character, but the House of Lords held: — 242