Jennings v Quinn and Another

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date28 July 1968
Date28 July 1968
Docket Number[1966. No. 1018 P.]

Supreme Court

[1966. No. 1018 P.]
Jennings v. Quinn.
PETER SUMERS JENNINGS
Plaintiff
and
WILLIAM P. QUINN and FRANCIS DOORIS, Defendants (1)

Criminal Law - Extradition - Arrest - Goods in possession of accused seized by Irish police at time of arrest - Whether seizure and detention of goods lawful - Whether goods may be delivered to English police.

Appeal from the High Court.

The plaintiff was arrested in Ireland by the second defendant on the 23rd September, 1965, on foot of an English warrant which had been duly endorsed in accordance with the provisions of Part III of the Extradition Act, 1965, and he was extradited to England on the 20th April, 1966. At the time of the arrest the second defendant had seized certain goods which were then in the plaintiff's possession

and, shortly afterwards, certain other goods were delivered to the second defendant. On the 22nd April, 1966, the plaintiff commenced an action in the High Court against the defendants, who were officers of the Garda Síochána, and by his statement of claim he sought, inter alia, the return of the goods. The plaintiff applied to the High Court by motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from parting with their possession of the goods, but the High Court (Budd J.) refused to grant the injunction and the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiff had been arrested in Ireland and extradited to England pursuant to the provisions of Part III of the Extradition Act, 1965. The Irish police had seized, at the time of the arrest, certain goods which were then in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendants, who were police officers, in the High Court for the return of the goods and he applied for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from parting with their possession of the goods pending the trial of the action. There was evidence that some of the goods had been stolen in England. The High Court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction and, on appeal by the plaintiff, it was

Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh ó dálaigh C.J., Walsh and O'Keeffe JJ.) in allowing the appeal, 1, that the police have power, when effecting a lawful arrest, to seize, without a search warrant, goods in the possession or custody of the person arrested if they believe that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the abstraction or destruction of the goods and if the goods are:— (a) evidence in support of the criminal charge on foot of which the arrest was made, or (b) evidence in support of any other criminal charge against the person arrested then being contemplated, or (c) reasonably believed to be stolen property or to be property which is unlawfully in the possession of the person arrested.

2. That such goods may be retained by the police for use at the trial of the person arrested, or of any other person or persons, on any criminal charge in which the goods are to be used as evidence in support of the charge or charges; and that thereafter they should be returned to the person from whom they were seized, unless their disposal otherwise has been directed by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Dillon v. O'Brien and Davis 20 L. R. Ir. 300 and Elias v. Pasmore[1934] 2 K. B. 164 considered.

3. That the defendants could retain lawfully in their possession any goods which had come into their possession at the time of, or shortly after, the arrest of the plaintiff and which were required as material evidence on a charge laid against him in the United Kingdom.

4. That, since there was no evidence that any of the goods in the possession of the defendants were so required, the plaintiff was entitled to the interlocutory injunction sought by him, but that the defendants should have liberty to apply to the High Court to have the injunction discharged in regard to specific items if so required for the purpose aforesaid and that any such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Jason Brady v Judge Gerard Haughton and Others
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 July 2005
    ...JUSTICE ACT 1988 S23 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S5 SINN FEIN FUNDS CASE 1950 IR 67 POLICE PROPERTY ACT 1897 S1(1) JENNINGS v QUINN 1968 IR 305 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 PART VII CONSTITUTION ART 40 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S51(15) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S51(2) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994......
  • DPP v Wilson
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 27 November 2014
    ...... had no qualification in statistics and thus could not determine the probability of whether another person could have identical DNA to that of the accused. The learned judge also found that the ... and found at or after arrest, and to prevent the destruction of such evidence: see Jennings v. Quinn [1968] I.R. 305 and Dillon v. O?Brien [1887] 20 L.R. Ir. 300 . That the gardaí have ......
  • DPP v Kelly
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 29 June 2012
    ...LAW ACT 1976 S9 R v GALBRAITH 1981 1 WLR 1039 R v LUCAS 1981 QB 720 DPP v CRONIN 2006 4 IR 329 DPP v ROONEY 1992 2 IR 7 JENNINGS v QUINN 1968 IR 305 O'MAHONY v BALLAGH 2002 2 IR 410 LYNDON v DISTRICT JUDGE UNREP CHARLETON 22.1.2007 2009/33/8216 2007 IEHC 487 KENNY v JUDGE COUGHLAN & DPP U......
  • DPP v McFadden
    • Ireland
    • Circuit Court
    • 3 March 2003
    ...any other criminal charge. 17 The law in this jurisdiction was stated by O'Keeffe J, speaking for the Supreme Court in Jennings -v- Quinn [1968] IR 305 as follows: "In my opinion the public interest requires that the police, when effecting a lawful arrest, may seize, without a search warra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT