The Gazette 1980

GAZETTE

JULY AUGUST 1980

allowed to drag on for an in- ordinate and inexcusable length of time. Four and a half years have been allowed to elapse between the issue of the warrant and this final disposition of the extradition proceedings. Whether from the point of view of the plaintiff or from that of the prosecuting authorities in England, the chances of a fair and proper trial have not, to put it mildly, been en- hanced by that delay". William Matthew Wilson v. John Sheehan, Supreme Court, (per Henchy J. with O'Higgins C. J. and Griffin J.) 23 May, 1979 — unreported. Salvage by lifeboat men in the course of saving life should not be awarded as a proportion of the value of the rescue vessel but on the basis of remuneration for services. The Plaintiffs' appeal to the Supreme Court arose from a High Court decision (per Finlay P.) to award them £750 for the salvage of motor trawler "Ora et Labora" (which had an agreed value of £45,000) in July, 1974. The Plaintiffs were the coxswain and crew of the Valentia lifeboat called out by a "Mayday" distress message from the trawler on 3 July 1974, the engines having failed a mile off a lee shore. The wind was westerly force six. In response to the message the lifeboat was launched at approximately 9 p.m. From their experience the coxswain and crew of the lifeboat had calculated that the trawler would be likely to drift to the cliffs near Ducall and Bolus Heads, Co. Kerry, and would be in grave danger not only from the cliffs but from submerged rocks some hundreds of yards to sea- ward. The lifeboat had reached the disabled vessel, then only several hundred yards from the lee shore, at approximately 11 p.m. The crew had then passed a line to the trawler and had towed it to safety and ultimately to Knightstown where it had been secured at 4.15 a.m. on the following morning. The High Court found that there was an immediate danger of the loss of the motor trawler. The Plaintiffs had claimed salvage based on a pro- portion of the value of the salved ADMIRALTY — SALVAGE

warrant was not sufficient to identify a corresponding offence in Irish Law and he ordered the Plaintiff to be released. That High Court Order was appealed to the Supreme Court. Held (per Henchy J.) that to show the necessary correspondence between the offence in the warrant and an offence in the State, it was necessary for the warrant to identify the offence by reference to the factual components relied on; and that it was only by looking at those components that a Court could decide whether the offence would, regardless of what name was attached to it, if committed here, constitute a corresponding criminal offence of the required gravity. The words in the warrant should be given their ordinary mean- ing, unless they were used in a con- text which suggested that they had a special signification. As the state- ment in the warrant in question that the offence was contrary to Section 8 of the (English) Theft Act, 1968, was made as a separate entry in that warrant, it was not necessary to have regard to what that Section said. Since "rob" in ordinary usage meant "deprive a person of property un- justifiably by force" the District Justice only had to decide whether the charge in the warrant would constitute an offence if the same conduct were charged here. Since the particulars of offence in the warrant would amount to an indictable offence in the State under one or other of the unrepealed sections of the Larceny Act, 1916, there was the necessary correspondence and an order for delivery of the Plaintiff was made. High Court decision reversed. On the question of correspondence of offences the Court considered the Supreme Court decisions of The State (Kelly) v. Furlong [1971] I.R. 132; and Wyatt v. McLoughlin 11974] I.R. 378, and also the Eng- lish decision of Re Arkins [1966] 3 All E.R. 651, (dealing with the corresponding provision in the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965). Note: At the end of his judgment Henchy J. stated the following:

property. The claim to any salvage had been resisted by the Defendants, but on the hearing of the appeal the latter conceded that salvage was awardable but only on the basis of remuneration in respect of the work actually performed by the Plaintiffs. Under the regulations of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which was the owner of the lifeboat, where a lifeboat has been launched on life saving duty, the coxswain and crew are permitted to engage in salvage services to property subject to refunding consumables, the cost of repairs and replacement resulting from loss or damage incurred during the service. The Institution does not claim salvage or allow salvage to be claimed on its behalf. Where there- fore a salvage claim arises in respect of salvage to property, it is a personal claim by the individual lifeboat men and is in respect of the personal services rendered by them; there can be no claim in respect of services rendered to the salved vessel by the lifeboat itself. The question for the Court to determine was the amount of an award as would fairly compensate the coxswain and crew, without in- justice to the interests of the salved vessel, the award to be such as would, in the interests of public policy, encourage others in like circumstances to perform like services. English cases considered in the High Court and on appeal were the "Corcrest" [1947] 80 Ll.L.Rep., 78, the "Guernsey Coast" [ 1950] 83 Ll.L.Rep., 483 and the "Africa Occidental" 11951] 2 Ll.L.Rep., 107. The Corcrest case was considered to be irrelevant to the present case in that on that occasion the lifeboat ultimately put to sea to salve a vessel known to be unmanned, the crew embarking solely on a salvage mission. The Guernsey Coast cast and the Africa Occidental case were considered to enunciate principles that were applicable. In both cases the lifeboat was launched on a rescue mission and whilst engaged on that purpose assisted in the salvage of the striken vessel. It had been held by the High Court that salvage should not be calculated upon the basis of a proportion of the value of the ship salved but on the basis of remuneration or reward to the lifeboat men. In assessing the

"Unfortunately, in disregard of the repeated statements from this Court that it is the duty of the authorities in this State to see that extradition proceedings in our courts are speedily disposed of, these proceedings have been