The Gazette 1989

APRIL 1989

GAZETTE

months, 1 and the District Justice should specify on the fact of his order what he considers to be the corresponding offences. 2 He may accept that only some of the offences on the warrant are corresponding and his rejection of others does not destroy the validity of the entire warrant. 3 The names of offences are unimportant as the same offence may be similarly named in each jurisdiction but have a different meaning. This necessitates the warrant or an affidavit from the prosecuting authority accompanying it to give "sufficient particulars of a factual nature setting out the ingredients of the offence . . . somewhat as the particulars of offences appear in a Court in an indictment under our law". 4 What is required therefore is the nature of the charge 5 and words in a warrant will be given their ordinary or popular meaning, unless the context suggests a special significance. 6 In 1971 the Supreme Court seemed to say that correspondence exists where the elements of an offence are precisely the same in Irish law as they are in UK Law. 7 The ratio of Ó Dálaigh C. J.'s judgment in Furlong's case being that if an offence under Irish law had an additional element to the offence under English law, or if the elements were the same in number V I EWPOINT Contd. from pmgm ITS Judges, can only work within and provide a level of service commen- surate with the facilities available to them. These facilities come under the control of the other arms of Government and are receiving only the most meagre of attention and little or no resources. Wrth the facts now clearly available to them on a countrywide basis, it is the immediate and urgent duty of central government to respond with

but not in character there should be no correspondence. The idea, it seems, was that no-one should be convicted in the UK on easier or lesser proofs than in Ireland. In 1974, the Supreme Court confined their analysis to the facts alleged against the accused in the particulars of offence and, because of the absence of expert evidence to the contrary, decided that if the accused had done in Ireland what he was alleged to have done in the United Kingdom he would have offended against our criminal law. 8 Again, in 1979, in the absence of expert evidence, the Court decided that the word "rob", as an ordinary English word, must correspond with the offence of "robbery" in Irish law. 9 Finally, in a unanimous judgement in 1981 the Court held the relaxation of the mens rea requirement in English law for the offence of receiving stolen goods, from "knowing" to "believing", where "knowing" was the mens rea requirement for the offence under Irish law, did not destroy the correspondence between the two offences; English law was said to have "an additional alternative ingredient"! 10 The point is that English law does not correspond. Obviously the receipt of a video recorder there, in the belief that it was stolen, would not secure a conviction for the same offence in a positive and adequately resourced programme to repair, renovate and rebuild. The state of our Courthouses shows neglect over a long number of years and is not the result of neglect by one party or by any particular political grouping. It is a national disgrace which shows scant regard for the fundamental institutions to our State and a total disregard for the welfare of those who must have recourse to it. •

and a signature, description and swearing clause by the authority before whom it is sworn, which authority should state that it knows the deponent, (j) The certificate should refer to the offence in the warrant and specify that it is an indictable offence only and if it is also a summary offence specify the maximum period of imprison- ment. If the offence is being prosecuted summarily it should give the further particulars required in section 51 and section 54(3) of the Act. 16 (k) The certificate should state that it is given by the authority or the clerk or other officer of the authority by which the warrant was issued. 17 (I) It is also wise for the dates, names, offences and persons named on the documents and signing the documents to correlate with each other. 18 The fundamental point is that the State must show documents which appear to comply with the Act and the defence have the burden of showing "good reason to the contrary". 19 That is that the documents do not have the appearance of those the Act demands or that, by proving UK law, that they have been invalidly issued. While the points above have been taken from the Act and checked against samples of the appropriate documents they may The offence specified in the warrant must correspond with an offence under the law of Ireland which is an indictable offence or is punishable on summary conviction for a maximum period of at least six not be exhaustive. Correspondence

Doyle Court Reporters Established 1954 Court and Conference Verbatim Reporting Daily Copy by Arrangement 2, Arran Quay, Dublin 7. Tel: 722833 or 862097 (After Hours)

121