The Gazette 1972

Convictions quashed, and leave granted to appeol to the House of Lords He added: "Mr. McSparran's second point for the applicants was that Regulation 38(1) is not conducive to peace, order and good government or in particular to the pereservation of the peace and the maintenance of order and is excessively far-reaching and oppressive. It is unnecessary, having regard to the conclusion I have already expressed, to analyse fully the arguments on this point and I will refrain from doing so". Finally Sir Robert said: " Lest there be any misunder- standing it should be pointed out that the conclusion reached in these proceedings does not affect whatever powers members of Her Majesty's forces have at com- mon law or by virtue of any valid statutory provisions or regulations which may exist or be enacted or made". Sir Robert said the appeal was therefore upheld and and the conviction on each of the five quashed. For the Crown. Mr. R. J. Carswell asked leave to appeal on the grounds that the House of Lords should examine the judgment as a matter of public importance. Mr. McSparran agreed that the matter was of urgent public importance and after consultation and a brief adjourn- ment an agreed wording for the certificate was arrived at. It was to ask the House of Lords to decide whether Regulation 38(1) of the Special Powers Act is void as contravening the limits imposed by the Government of Irealnd Act, 1920. Section 4(1) in so far as it provides that any commissioned officer on duty or any member of Her Majestys' forces acting on his behalf may order the persons in the assembly to disperse forthwith". Sir Robert was sitting with Mr. Justice Gibson and Mr. Justice O'Donnell. As well as Mr. McSparran, Mr. Charles Hill appeared for the five appellants. We don't often blow our own trumpet about the help we can give to business. Indeed, we usually get on with the job without making a fuss about it. But things change. New situations develop. And we, as a leading merchant bank have to act accordingly. One such situation is Ireland's possible entry into the Common Market. Another is the country's expanding export trade. There are more. So right now, businessmen need as much financial advice and assistance as they can get. Hence the trumpet-blowing. We can give the advice. We can give the assistance. And, along with our associate banks — Hambros and The Toronto-Dominion — we can help with any number of critical problems. Problems like export financing; acceptance credits; mergers; bridging finance; portfolio management; and a whole lot more So if you've got the kind of business that could use a good bank behind it — get in touch. Give us a ring at 778301, or drop a line to 5 College Green, Dublin 2. (A) Allied Irish Investment Bank MEMBER OF ALLIED IRISH BANKS GROUP In association with Hambros Bank Limited, The Toronto- Dominion Bank and Irish Life Assurance Company Limited

Appellants' Claim succeeds, because Regulations overrule 1920 Act Sir Robert Lowry went on: " Mr. McSparran submits that Regulation 38 (1), because of its specific confer- ment powers on ' any commissioned officer * and 'any members of Her Majesty's forces on duty, is a law made in contravention of the limitations imposed by Section 4 and is therefore (without prejudice to his second point) void so far as it contravenes those limitations". In summarising his decisions, Sir Robert said: " (1) The words ' any commissioned officer of Her Majesty's forces on duty' and ' any member of . . . Her .Majesty's forces on duty' are descriptive of subject matter within the forbidden field comprised in Section 4 (1)(3) of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act. " (2) Regulation 38(1) of the Special Powers Act is a Jaw ' in respect of ' that subject matter; (3) The words ' in respect of ' have the same general meaning through- out Section 4(1) and are nowhere confined to the imposi- tion of burdens, controls or obligations: "(4) The intention of the legislature is to be derived from the words of Section 4(1); (5) The reference to the forbidden subject matter is not a matter of incidental effect as defined by Gallagher v. Lynn, but is an example of the achievement of a lawful object by invalid methods; and (6) Even though Regulation 38(1) *s in respect of the preservation of peace and the main- tenance of order, it is also, by virtue of the powers con- ferred on officers and members of Her Majesty's forces on duty, in respect of the subject matter included in Paragraph (3) of Section 4(1) and to that extent con- travenes the limitations thereby imposed". AIIB: Behindevery good business there's a good bank.

75