Crowley v McVeigh

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Blayney
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1990
• Neutral Citation: 1989 WJSC-HC 1141
• Date: 01 January 1990
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 1988/881 s.s.,[1988 No. 881 S.S.]

1989 WJSC-HC 1141

THE HIGH COURT

1988/881 s.s.

CROWLEY v. MCVEIGH

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1857

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL

PROVISIONS) ACT, 1961

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER PART III

OF THE EXTRADITION ACT, 1965ENTITLED

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EUGENE CHRISTOPHER CROWLEY ANDSUPERINTENDENT FRANK GLACKEN

APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS

AND

PATRICK McVEIGH

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

Citations:

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S29

SYRED V CARRUTHERS 1858 E B & E 489

WOODHOUSE V WOOD 1859 23 JP 759

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE V BELLEW 1889 24 LR IR 420

TEDDINGTON UDC V VILE 1906 70 JP 381

CLARKE V MAGUIRE 1909 2 IR 681

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47(1)

DPP V NANGLE 1984 ILRM 171

Synopsis:

CASE STATED

District Justice

High Court - Jurisdiction - Condition precedent - Compliance - Statutory requirement - Appellant to give notice to respondent before transmission of the Case - Respondent not found - Extradition - Sufficiency of evidence that arrested person was the person named in the warrant - The District Justice refused to make an order under s. 47 of the Act of 1965 on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that the respondent was the person named in the English warrant - The District Justice stated a Case, pursuant to s. 2 of the Act of 1857, for the opinion of the High Court on whether he had acted correctly in refusing to make such order - Held that every possible effort had been made to serve the respondent with the documents mentioned in s. 2 of the Act of 1857 and that the service of those documents on the solicitor who acted for the respondent at the hearing of the appellant's application was sufficient compliance with the requirements of the said section: ~Clarke v. Maguire~ [1909] 2 I.R. 681, 43 I.L.T.R. 52 applied - Held that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts found by the District Justice was that the respondent was the person named and described in the warrant - Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, s. 2 - Extradition Act, 1965, s. 47 - (1988/881 SS - Blayney J. - 4/5/89) - [1990] ILRM 220 [1989] IR 73

|Crowley v. McVeigh|

CRIMINAL LAW

Extradition

Warrant - Person named - Description - Sufficiency - Evidence - Proof that person before the court was the person named in the warrant - ~See~ Case Stated, District Justice - (1988/881 SS - Blayney J. - 4/5/89) - [1990] ILRM 220 [1989] IR 73

|Crowley v. McVeigh|

HIGH COURT

Jurisdiction

Case Stated - Determination - Statute - Requirements - Compliance - Condition precedent - ~See~ Case Stated, District Justice - (1988/881 SS - Blayney J. - 4/5/89) - [1990] ILRM 220 [1989] IR 73

|Crowley v. McVeigh|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Blayneydelivered the 4th day of May 1989.

2 This is an appeal by way of Case Stated pursuant to Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 as extended by Section 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961.

3 On the 13th June 1988, the Appellants, at a sitting of the District Court held at Portlaoise in the County of Laois, applied pursuant to Section 47 of the Extradition Act, 1965for an Order for the extradition of the Respondent. The application was made on foot of two warrants issued on the 13th May 1988 by a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Justice of the Peace for the inner London area. Both warrants were issued against one Patrick McVeigh and the address of the said Patrick McVeigh was given as "Portlaoise Prison, CountyLaois, Eire, formerly of 18 Forest Street, Belfast, NorthernIreland."

4 The facts as proved or admitted and accepted by the learned District Justice are set out in paragraph 3 of the Case Stated as follows:-

5 a 3(a) The said two warrants were properly issued by a judicial authority in the requesting country in respect of offences which correspond with offences common to this jurisdiction.

6 (b) On foot of the aforesaid two warrants Superintendent Frank Glacken of Portlaoise Garda Station on the 18th day of May 1988 arrested the Respondent.

7 (c) The Respondent's name is Patrick McVeigh.

8 (d) The Respondent is the same Patrick McVeigh who on his arrest in Limerick in June 1982 gave his address as 18 Forest Street, Belfast.

9 (e) The Respondent is the same Patrick McVeigh who completed a term of imprisonment at Portlaoise Prison on the 18th May 1988.

10 (f) In the Period during which he served his sentence in the said Portlaoise Prison, and specifically on the 13th May, 1988, ( the date of issue of the aforementioned warrants) the Respondent, Patrick McVeigh, was the only person of that name in the said Prison.

11 (g) The Respondent was in custody in this jurisdiction for the greater part of the period during which the offences specified in this said warrants are alleged to have been committed by him.

12 The learned District Justice having set out thesubmissions of Counsel then went on to specify in paragraph 6 the matters which he took into account in reaching his decision that the evidence was insufficient to enable him to make an Order forDelivery:-

13 6.In reaching my decision that the evidence was insufficient to enable me to make an Order for Delivery I took the following matters into account:-

14 (a) The most recent High Court Judgment in an extradition case of which I was aware was that of Mr.Justice Gannon in Ann Cawley -v- District Justice Clifford (Judicial Review Number 54 of 1988) heard on the 6th May, 1988. In the course of his Judgement Mr. Justice Gannon stated that where the liberty of the person is at issue proceedings must confirm to the law exactly; that nothing was more important than that the correct person be transferred; and that there must be legally admissible evidence that the person before the Court was the person the Police want and were charging. (There was no written Judgment in this case but a copy of the Registrar's note is attached).

15 (b) There was no evidence given to me by any English Police Officer or Official that the Person before the Court was the person named in the warrants or the person wanted by the requesting authority.

16 (c) There was no evidence that the Respondent was the only person named Patrick McVeigh who resided at 18 Forest Street, Belfast.

17 (d) The offences specified in the said two warrants are alleged to have been committed by the Respondent (andothers) between the 7th August, 1981 and the 27th October, 1983, a period of twenty six and a half months. For more than the latter sixteen months of that period the Respondent was in custody within thisjurisdiction.

18 The question for this Court is then stated as follows in paragraph7:-

19 7. The opinion of the High Court is sought as to whether, upon the above statement of facts, my determination was correct in point of law.

20 Before considering this question, however, another issue has to be determined, namely, whether the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the Case Stated. It arises in this way. Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 requires that the Appellant, within three days of having received the Case Stated from the District Justice, shall transmit the same to this Court "first giving notice in writing of such appeal, with a copy of the case so stated and signed, to the other party to the proceeding in which the determination was given, hereinafter called the Respondent".

21 It was common case that compliance with this requirement is a condition precedent to the High Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Case Stated. The Respondent contends that this requirement was not complied with and that accordingly the Court does not havejurisdiction.

22 The relevant facts on which this issue has to be decided are set out in a number of Affidavits filed on behalf of the Appellants. They are not in dispute and are as follows.

23 A notice requiring a Case Stated was served by Mr. W.R. White, the State Solicitor for the Country of Laois, onMr. James McCormack, the District Court Clerk at Portlaoise, on the 20th June, 1988 and the Case Stated, duly signed by the learned District Justice, was received by Mr.White on the 7th December, 1988. On the same day Mr.White wrote to Mr.Edward O'Sullivan, of Messrs Pierse O'Sullivan and Co., Tralee, the Solicitor who had acted for the Respondent in the District Court, and sent him a copy of the Case Stated and a copy of a Notice in the following terms for the Respondent:-

"Take notice that we Deputy Commissioner Eugene Christopher Crowley and Superintendent Frank Glacken the above named Applicants/Appellants do hereby give you notice of an appeal by us by way of Case Stated from the determination of the Justice of the District Court on the hearing of the said proceeding and we send herewith a copy of the Case Stated thereon, delivered to us in pursuance of our application in that behalf.

Dated this 7th day of December, 1988.

Signed W.R.White."

24 The same documents were also served on Mr. O'Sullivan at 3 p.m. on the 9th December, 1988 by Inspector Michael Neill who delivered them to Miss O'Shea, a Solicitor in Mr. O'Sullivan's firm, who accepted them on behalf of Mr.O'Sullivan.

25 Mr.O'Sullivan had been sent a copy of the draft Case Stated by Mr. White on the 24th June, 1988 and he had written to Mr.White saying that he had acted for the Respondent in the District Court at Portlaoise; had received no further instructions from him, and had not been instructed to accept service "of the Notice requiring Case Stated as served on theDistrict Court Clerk". He went on to say that he had never acted for the Respondent prior to the extradition application; that it appeared to him that he had discharged his responsibility to the Respondent, and he would consider it was unlikely that the Respondent would instruct him again. He therefore returned the papers to Mr.White. When Mr.White sent Mr. O'Sullivan a copy of...