The Gazette 1972

court and he then had to consider whether this con- tempt was of such a nature as would require or justify the court in making an order against the company, the editor, or the writer. Contempt not deemed serious " I have come to the conclusion that the publication was not likely as a matter of fact to have created any prejudice to the trials and that therefore, the contempt in this case was not of such a serious nature as to call for the intervention of the court. I will, therefore, allow the cause shown and discharge the conditional order." ; In the case in which he found for the Attorney General, Pringle J. allowed him one-third of the total costs against all three respondents. In the second case he made no order as to costs, where the respondents abide their own costs. He allowed the respondents a stay of execution of one month in the event of an appeal. Minister loses action about landing fees. Te Minister for Transport and Power has failed in his action against Trans World Airlines Inc. in which he had claimed £19,974 in landing fees. The President of the High Court (Mr. Justice O'Keeffe) in a reserved judgment delivered yesterday, dismissed the action and awarded costs to T.W.A. On the application of Mr. V. Landy, S.C. (for the Minister), he granted a stay of execution. The Minister had claimed that the amount sought was due in respect of increases in landing fees of 27£ per cent since April 1969. The company, in its defence, admitted having agreed to a per cent increase, but it contested the authority of the Minister to impose the other 20 per cent increase. When the case was opened last month it was stated that it was a test case against T.W.A. and that other major airlines were defendants in similar proceedings which were pending. Rights to recover fees not proved In his judgment yesterday, the President reviewed the arguments put forward, but said he did not feel it necessary to review the evidence. He said he considered that the Minister had not shown that he had any rights to recover the landing fees claimed in this action and that the action should be dismissed. In his judgment, Mr. Justice O'Keeffe stated that counsel for the Minister had submitted that as the Minister was entitled by virtue of Section 37 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, to establish and maintain aerodromes, he must necessarily be entitled to impose a charge on tho:e who used them in respect of the use of the aerodromes. It was for the Minister to determine the amount of the charge he would make, with the possible restriction that the charge must be reasonable in relation to the expenses incurred by the Minister. If Section 37 of the Act authorised the Minister to make charges in respect of the use of the aerodromes, h* cou'.d find nothing in it to limit the amount of such charges to what was reasonable. The plaintiff's con- tention was in effect that the section authorised the Minister for Transport and Power to carry on the business of aerodrome proprietors. It must be under- stood that the plaintiff was a corporation sole head of 170

of the guns recently stolen from a Drogheda police station. South Louth policemen are desperate to recover these weapons in order to show their efficiency and satisfy their superiors who are more than somewhat upset at their carelessness. They believe the I.R.A. stole the guns which, incidentally, include a magnificent Israeli-made machine gun. They are wrong. An ordinary thief came upon them by chance and stole them. He approached the I.R.A. and made a financial deal with them. " Following the theft, Mr. Mac Raghnaill was taken /nto custody and held for about 12 hours. He knew nothing and was let go. Since this, Special Branch men have gone to extreme and very strange lengths to get the guns. In places as far apart as Cork and Monaghan they approached relatives of known volunteers and made a curious offer; give the stolen guns back and we will give you other guns in exchange, plus £200 for your trouble and no questions will be asked. '"This offer brought no results. It was then that the arrangement was made with a certain gang, mem- bers of which already have a working understanding with certain policemen on both sides of the Border. This is gangsterism of the 1920s Chicago variety. It must not be allowed to continue." Mr. Justice Pringle said there were two distinct ques- tions for decision: (1) was there any contempt? and (2) if there was, was it such contempt as would require or justify the court in making an order against the respondent? On the first question, the judge said he must look at the article in the light of the circumstances which existed at the time of its publication. The trials of three men, Maguire, Fleming and Flynn, were pending. It was not known whether or not they, or any of them, were to be tried by Justice or by a jury. What would be the likely effects of having read the article on a ju'or empannelled to try any of these three men, asked Mr. Justice Pringle. Contempt to implicate untried thief The judge said he thought the main impression left in the mind of a reader would be that the article was directed against the Special Branch detectives who were stated, among other things, to have instigated the beating up of Mr. Mac Raghnaill and to have offered other guns and money for the stolen guns. But such a juror would also read the categorical statement that the person who stole the guns was an ordinary thief who came upon them by chance and then approached the I.R.A. and made a financial deal with them. " I consider that these statements by a writer who held himself out as knowing the facts in regard to the stealing of the guns, would tend or be calculated to prejudice the fair trial of Maguire and they thus, in my opinion, constituted a contempt of court.' Article deemed contempt because it would influence jurors He said that similarly the statements in the article that the beating of Mr. Mac Raghnaill was carried out at the instigation of Special Branch detectives by mem- bers of a gang which had a work'ng understanding with certain policemen on both sides of the Border, and that this was gangsterism of the 1920s Chicago variety, would tend to be calculated to influence a juror who had read the article and who was called upon to try Fleming and Flynn and to prejudice the trial in their favour. In his opinion the article did constitute a contempt of