DPP v Littlejohn

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Henchy
• Judgment Date: 19 July 1978
• Neutral Citation: 1978 WJSC-CCA 2241
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 19 July 1978

1978 WJSC-CCA 2241

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

MR. JUSTICE HENCHY

MR. JUSTICE GANNON

MR. JUSTICE McMAHON

No. 25/1978

People (D.P.P.) v. KENNETH LITTLEJOHN

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v.

KENNETH LITTLEJOHN

1 Judgment of the Court delivered this 19th July 1978 by Mr. Justice Henchy

2 This is an application by Kenneth Littlejohn for certificate under section 29, Courts of Justice Act, 1924, under which this Court is empowered to issue a certificate that a point of law of exceptional public importance has arisen in the appeal and that it is desirable in the public interest that a further appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court. Such a certificate may issue from this Court.

3 Now it is to be noted that for the purpose of granting such a certificate the onus is on the appellant to show two points. Firstly, that there is a point of law of exceptional public importance and secondly, that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal be carried from this Court (the Court of Criminal Appeal) to the Supreme Court. In support of his application for such a certificate, Mr. Littlejohn relies on four grounds.

4 Firstly, be says that in the course of the extradition proceedings in England, whereby he was extradited from England to this country, the then Attorney General swore an affidavit in which he gave certain undertakings, and it is Mr. LittieJohn's contention that Mr. Condon, the then Attorney General, in that affidavit expressly or impliedly warranted, and assured the English Court, that he, Kenneth Littlejohn, would not be tried in the Special Criminal Court. Mr. Littlejohn deduces that from certain matters in the affidavit. Firstly, in that in paragraph 1 Mr. Condon referred to the fact that all charges and offences prosecuted in any court constituted under Article 34 of the Constitution, other than a court of summary jurisdiction, shall be prosecuted in the name of the People at the suit of the Attorney General or some other person authorised in accordance with law to act for that purpose. Mr. Littlejohn then refers to section 39 of the Extradition Act, 1965, which refers to the Rule of Specialty in International Law whereby it is provided that a person extradited under the Act shall not be charged other than for an offence under the words "the description of the offence", as these words are used in the Act. Now the arguments run thus, that when a person is extradited, the country to which he 1s extradited is bound to try him for an offence of the sane description as the offence for which he is extradited, and that in this case when he, Mr. Littlejohn, was extradited to this country, the Attorney General by converting this case into one which was triable in the Special Criminal Court, thereby bringing it into the category of a scheduled or non-scheduled offence under the Offence against the State Act 1939, converted it into something other than the offence described in Mr. Condon's affidavit.

5 Firstly, as to the reference to the Constitution, the only reference to the Constitution in Mr. Condon's affidavit is to the Article in the Constitution which describes the functions of the Attorney General. The application of the Rule of Specialty to this case applies no more than to this extent, that it would not be competent for this country or for the Attorney General of this...