The Gazette 1973

Man wanted for theft in England fails in High Court Application. In a reserved judgment delivered in the High Court in Dublin yesterday, Mr. Justice Finlay refused an application for release under the Extradition Act brought by David Wyatt, of Rosewood Estate, Ballin- collig, Cork. Wyatt had challenged an order made against him in the District Court for his extradition to England on foot of a warrant alleging that at Stockport he took a Ford Tipper lorry, valued at £3,000 without the consent of the owners. Mr. Justice Finlay made no order as to costs. Wyatt challenged the extradition order on the grounds that no evidence was offered before the District Justice upon which he could determine that the offence in the warrant corresponded to any offence under the law of the State and that the order was therefore in- valid. In the course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Finlay said he found himself driven to the conclusion that each of the allegations o ffact made against the accused in the warrant before him (the judge) were material, though not the only allegations of fact to constitute the ingredients of theft under the Theft Act, 1968. They were, of course, at the same time the classically essen- tial ingredients of the offence of larce y as defined in the Larceny Act, 1916. This, said Mr. Justice Finlay, would lead to a con- clusion that the offence specified in the warrant was a offence corresponding with an indictable offence in Ireland, subject to one further argument by counsel on behalf of Mr. Wyatt. Mr. Wyatt's counsel, said Mr. Justice Finlay, con- tended that, having regard to the fact that appropria- tion was wider and might be carried out in more varied forms than taking and carrying away, the accused person, if extradited, might then be faced with a situa- tion in which he could be convicted of theft under the 1968 Theft Act in England, without the prosecution having to prove a taking and carrying away as they now alleged in the warrant, provided that they proved an appropriation in some other form; and some of the other forms in which they could prove appropriation would not be indictable offences in Irish law. Mr. Justice Finlay said that an Extradition Act was the necessary consequence of an agreement between two sovereign States reposing confidence in each other and that he should not suppose that the court and other authorities of the country to whom extradition was sought were using a deceit so as to secure the appre- hension of the plaintiff. Apart from this, and in his view more decisive, was the fact that, under the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1965, there appeared to be nothing to stop a per- son, extradited on a warrant in respect of one charge, being tried for other offences in the courts of the coun- try to which he was extradited, except for the pro- vision restricting the extradition of a person where there

were substantial reasons for believing that he would, if removed from the State on any charge, be prosecuted or detained for a political offence or an offence con- nected with a political offence, or an offence under military law which was not an offence under ordinary criminal law. If that was so, then it seemed to him that an asser- tion that all or part of the allegations of fact contained in a warrant might not be proved, but that instead of them some other act or fact sufficient to constitute the same English offence might be proved instead, was not a valid objection to the making of an order under section 47 (of the Extradition Act). He therefore re- fused the application in this case. Mr. Wyatt has 21 days to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. (The Irish Times, 15 November 1973.) Doctor wins Count Order against transfer of shares. A Co. Cork consultant psychologist was granted a temporary injunction in the High Court yesterday re- straining Pye (Ireland) Ltd., of Dundrum, Co. Dublin, through their servant and agent, Mr. Charles O. Stan- lev, from transferring 419,766 shares in Credit Finance Ltd. Dr. Peter Berry, of Skibbereen, whose English ad- dress was given as Bentley Grange, Green Lane, Burn- ham, Buckinghamshire, said in an affidavit that in August last he, along with certain associates, became interested in acquiring Phillips' block of shares held by their subsidiaries and associates in Credit Finance. With that in view he approached Mr. Stanley as the chairman of Pye (Ireland), in the name of which com- pany there were then registered 419,766 ordinary shares of 25p each in Credit Finance. He had several meetings with Mr. Stanley who, on September 23 at his home in Clonakilty, Co. Cork, confirmed to him that he would grant an option to purchase the shares on or before October 31 last. On October 1, Mr. Berry said he received an option granted by Mr. Stanley to purchase the shares in Credit Finance and on October 26, in writing, he informed Mr. Stanley that he proposed to exercise his option to purchase the shares. On November 14 he was informed by Mr. Van Eyle, Executive Director of Philips Industries, that Pye (Ireland) had held a board meeting and that his offer to purchase the shares had been considered, but that it had been decided that the company would sell their shares to a third party. He immediately sent a telegram to Pye (Ireland) reminding them of the option he had exercised. On November 15, he received a telegram from A. and L. Goodbody, solicitors for Pye (Ireland), alleging that there Was no agreement in existence between the company and him. The order, made by Mr. Justice Kenny, is effective until after Monday next. (Irish Independent, 20 November 1973.) plaintiff's solicitors referring to the plaintiff's "proposed purchase of the . . . property for £6,500 subject to Contract" and stating that they would obtain the tirle deeds and submit a draft contract as soon as possible. On February 25 they wrote again referring to the earlier letter and enclosing the daft contract. On March 13 the parties agreed on an increased price of £7,000. 236

LAW v JONES—Summary of Case Court of Appeal; Civil Division; Russell, Buckley and Orr L J J ; 1, 2 March, 10 April 1973.

By an oral agreement made on 17 February 1972 the defendant agreed to sell, and the plaintiff to buy, a freehold property for £6,500. There was no intention that the agreement should be subject to contract. On February 18 the defendant's solicitors wrote to the