Gillespie v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: HENCHY
• Judgment Date: 01 June 1976
• Neutral Citation: 1975 WJSC-SC 954
• Docket Number: [1973 No. 996 P],(124-1975)
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 June 1976

GILLESPIE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

AFFIRMING HIGH-4.7.75

LIAM GILLESPIE

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

1975 WJSC-SC 954

(124-1975)

THE SUPREME COURT

1 JUDGMENT OF HENCHY J. DELIVERED the 1st day of June 1976 O'HIGGINS C.J. & GRIFFIN J. AGREEING.

2 The point raised by the plaintiff—in the High Court and in this appeal—is that he should have been allowed to adduce the evidence of an expert in English law, to show that the English warrant on which he is to be extradited is invalid because it was issued without jurisdiction.

3 The plaintiff has an address in Co. Donegal. It is alleged that in March 1972, when giving evidence as a witness in a criminal trial in the Manchester Crown Court (which is said to have been held in the County of Lancaster), he wilfully made a statement, material in those proceedings, which he knew to be false, contrary to s.1 of the perjury Act, 1911.

4 On the basis of that charge, a Justice of the peace for the County of Chester issued a warrant for his arrest on the 2nd February 1973. Proceedings were then put in train for his extradition from the Republic of Ireland to England. When the matter came up in the District Court, the District Justice being satisfied that the offence charged in the warrant corresponded with the office of perjury under the law of this State, an order was made under s. 47(1) of the Extradition Act, 1965, for the delivery up of the plaintiff to Cheshire Constabulary for conveyance to Stockport, Cheshire; and Dublin Airport was fixed as the point of departure.

5 That order was dated the 6th April 1973. S. 48(1) of the Act put a stay of fifteen days on the execution of the order, and under s. 48(2) if the plaintiff move within the fifteen days for an order of habeas corpus or for his release under s. 50, he could not be delivered up while the proceedings were pending.

6 In fact he commenced the present proceedings within the fifteen days. The plenary summons was issued on the 17th April 1973 and the statement of claim was delivered on the 9th July 1973. These proceedings were commenced by plenary summons because the amendment in the Rules of the Superior Courts allowing proceedings for an order under S.50 of the Extradition Act, 1965, to be brought by special summons was not made until July 1973.

7 In the statement of claim the plaintiff seeks, as well as an order under s.50 of the Act, a declaration that the order of the District Court was invalidly made. As I stated at the outset, the complaint is that the order of the District Court was made on foot of an English warrant which issued without jurisdiction. This point was not taken in the District Court, nor is any reference to it to be found in the statement of claim. It was first made in argument in the High Court. It is the only point taken on this appeal and, as far as I am aware, it was the only point taken in the High Court. In that Court, counsel for the plaintiff sought to adduce the evidence of an expert in English law to the effect that a Justice of the peace for the County of Chester had no jurisdiction to issue a warrant for the arrest of a man resident in the Republic of Ireland in respect of an offence committed in the County of Lancaster. The judge ruled that such evidence was not admissible. So he dismissed the plaintiff's claim. Since the case presented no issue under s.50 of the Act, the dismiss amounted to a rejection of the claim that the order of the District Court was bad because the English warrant on which it rested was bad.

8 The resolution of this point is to be found in s. 55(1) of the Act, which provides:

"In any proceedings, unless the court sees good reason to the the...