The Gazette 1980

1916. McMahon J. in the High Court held that the specification in the warrant was not sufficient to identify a corresponding offence in Irish Law and ordered the Plaintiff to be released. On appeal, the Supreme Court per Henchy J. reversed McMahon J. and held that the District Justice had reached the correct conclusion, for he only had to decide whether the charge in the warrant would constitute an offence if the same conduct were charged here. An Order was made to re-arrest the Plaintiff. Henchy J. also criticised the fact that 4} years had elapsed between the issue of the warrant and the final disposition of the Extradition proceedings. JULY/ AUGUST.

The State (Caseley) v. Dr. Daly and Justice O'Sullivan. Gannon J. held: (I) That, although Caseley had been detained by order of the Minister in the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, since 12 May 1975, the order of Justice O'Sullivan. by which the accused was remanded due to illness on 6 November 1975. was not bad on its face, and was not made withoutjurisdiction, as that order was of an administrative nature, and not of a judicial nature. (2) As the Ministerial Order was effective only from 12 May to the next remand on 15 May 1977. and as there was no further Ministerial Order, the continued detention of Caseley was not justified in law. Accordingly an Order of Release of the Prosecutor was made — MARCH. State (Walsh) v. District Justice Maguire. A person detained under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 may, notwithstanding the unreported decision of Finlay P. in the State (Bremen) v. Mahon - 13 February 1978 — to the contrary, be validly charged at his place of detention during his period of detention under that Section: it is not necessary that he be first charged in the District Court. The prosecutor had been charged with armed robbery in a Garda Station, and sought to make absolute a Conditional Order of Certiorari which was unanimously refused by the Supreme Court — APRIL. Treacy v. Dwyer Nolan Developments Ltd. Plaintiff purchaser liable to Defendant Vendor and Builder for interest on balance of purchase money at contract rate of 20%. In November 1977, the plaintifTleft with the defendant a list of defects, which defendant claimed were not serious; the plaintiff inspected the house in mid-December, but no report was furnished to the defendant. The plaintiff continued to contend that the house was defective but, subsequent to the Architect's certificate of the completion of the house in May 1978, the defendant insisted upon full payment of 20% from November 1977. On June 25, 1977, the plaintiff put the balance of the purchase money onjoint deposit, and sued for specific performance. Held by McWilliam J.: Walsh and Others v. Owners of the Motor Vessel M Ora et Labora". The Plaintiffs were the Coxwain and Crew of the Valentia Harbour Life Boat which, in response to a May Day call, were atsea from 9 p.m. on 3 July 1974 to 4.15 a.m. on 4 July, when they managed to land the Defendant Motor Vessel at Valentia. Finlay P. had held that salvage of the vessel should be calculated on the basis of remuneration or reward to the lifeboat men. He had awarded £750 to the Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court per Griffin J. increased the award from £750 to £ 1,500 — JULY/AUGUST. Wilson v. Shcchan. Extradition was sought on a warrant which recited that Plaintiff had robbed M.B. of £281 and had used personal violence contrary to S. 8 of the Theft Act (1) That the Defendant was entitled to Interest at 20% from 1 January to 25 June 1978. (2) That the Plaintiff was not entitled to any damages — OCTOBER.

negotiations for increased remuneration for 1 year were made by his union, but direct negotiations broke down. After protracted negotiation by the Labour Court, the allowances were duly paid to the professional staff but not to the technician. The Plaintiff sued for a declaration that as a result of a letter, technicians were entitled to Marriage and Children's Allowance as a package for the period ending 1 April 1971. McWmiam J. held that the Plaintiff was entitled to damages equal to the appropriate Marriage and Children's Allowances for 2 years ending on 1 April 1971 — MARCH. The People (D.P.P.) v. Moore and O'Sullivan — C.C.A. Appellants, convicted of murder, objected to statement which it was contended should not be admitted. The Court of Criminal Appeal per Finlay P. held: (1) That the function of the Court was to consider the stenographer's report to determine whether or not the trial was satisfactory by reviewing matters of law and of evidence. (2) That all the findings made by Hamilton J., the trial Judge, would be supported by the evidence. There were no grounds for setting aside the findings of fact of Hamilton J., with regard to the voluntary nature of the presence of the appellants in the Garda station. (3) There was a conflict of evidence with regard to a file, which Moore said had been used to shatter glass, while O'Sullivan said he had used it to rob cars. This statement should have been excluded, since it was prejudicial, and did not relate to the onus of proof on either side. Nevertheless, since no miscarriage of justice had occurred, this ground of appeal was disallowed by applying S. 5 (l)of the Courts ofJustice Act 1928. (4) That Hamilton J., was justified in admitting a statement of Moore, even though the Judge's Rules were breached, as no note had been taken by the Gardai of this statement at the time. (5) The appellants contended that they thought the deceased was dead when they choked him. Hamilton J. had discussed in his charge the presumption that a person intended the natural consequences of his acts. The Appellate Court was satisfied that Hamilton J. was bound in law to discuss the question of intention, and the rebuttable presumption concerning it. Application for leave to appeal dismissed — OCTOBER. S.P. v. P.T. and A.T. Defendants, husband and wife, negotiated the sale of their family home to the Plaintiff. Wife did not sign a standard form of consent under the Family Home Protection Act 1976, but signed a letter agreeing to the sale. There were subsequent domestic difficulties between the Defendants and the wife had a separate solicitor, and contended that she would only leave her home, on condition that the husband should purchase another house, which he had not done. It was also contended that if the consent in writing was necessary for the actual Conveyance to the Plaintiff. McWniiam I. held: (1) That the original Consent of July 1978 was an absolutely unconditional Consent. The dispute between the spouses did not affect the disposition of the purchase price. (2) That it was not the intention of the Legislature to require two Consents for the completion of one Transaction. This would leave the purchaser having to incur unnecessary expense — NOVEMBER.

1968. It was submitted by the Plaintiff that under S. 50(2)oftheExtradition Act 1965, this offence did not correspond with any indictable offence under the law of the State. The District Justice held that the offence in the warrant corresponded with robbery with violence contrary to the Larceny Act