Maguire v Keane

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeWalsh, J.,Henchy J.,GRIFFIN J.,McCARTHY J.
Judgment Date01 January 1986
Neutral Citation1985 WJSC-SC 2490
CourtSupreme Court
Date01 January 1986

1985 WJSC-SC 2490

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

Walsh J.

Henchy J.

Griffin J.

McCarthy J.

179/85
MAGUIRE v. KEANE
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 50 OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 1965

Between

GERARD MICHAEL MAGUIRE
Plaintiff

and

Respondent
PATRICK KEANE, JOHN COTTER AND DISTRICT JUSTICE JOHNCLIFFORD
Appellants

Citations:

CULLEN V CLEIN 1970 IR 146

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50

HANLON V FLEMING 1981 IR 489, 1982 ILRM 69

NORTHERN BANK FINANCE V CHARLTON 1979 IR 149

QUINN V WREN 1985 IR 334 1985 ILRM 410

SS GAIRLOCH 1899 2 IR 1

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Extradition

Exception - Political offence - Offence connected with a political offence - Onus of proof on applicant seeking release - Robbery - Crime planned by accomplice of applicant - Proceeds of robbery received by applicant - Allegation by applicant that he gave his share of the proceeds to proscribed organisation from political motives - Failure to establish that crime recited in foreign warrant was a political offence - Extradition act, 1965, s. 50 - (179/85 - Supreme Court - 31/7/85)

|Maguire v. Keane|

EVIDENCE

Facts

Inferences - Appellate court - Trial by judge without jury - Inferences to be drawn from proved or admitted facts - Appellate court drawing inferences different from those drawn by trial judge - (179/85 - Supreme Court - 31/7/85).

|Maguire v. Keane|

SUPREME COURT

Appeal

Facts - Establishment - Trial by judge without jury - Inferences to be drawn from proved or admitted facts - Appellate court drawing inferences different from those drawn by trial judge - (179/85 - Supreme Court - 31/7/85).

|Maguire v. Keane|

1

JUDGMENT delivered on the 31st day of July 1985by Walsh, J. [Finlay CJ. concurring]

2

The only relevant finding in the judgment of Egan, J. is contained in the following words: "I am inclined to hold that the applicant has persuaded me that the crime was for the Provisional I.R.A. organisation." The question of whether the plaintiff was for or against violence is immaterial and irrelevant. It is equally immaterial whether or not the I.R.A. had the same aims as the INLA, as there is no evidence whatever in the present case of what their aims are save that the plaintiff claimed that their object is "to have the English forces removed and to have it freed."

3

The basis of the judge's finding appears to be the evidence given by the plaintiff, Maguire, both initially on his affidavit and the subsequent cross-examination on hisaffidavit. In this evidence he claims that he joined the Provisional I.R.A. sometime between 1974 and 1976 but "he was not sure of what exact date he became a member". In the cross-examination on his affidavit he said nothing whatever about the robbery being planned for the benefit of the I.R.A. or for the political purposes of the I.R.A. In his cross-examination he stated that he passed on to the Provisional I.R.A. the share of the robbery which he received. In his affidavit he claimed that a person working on the railway who was otherwise identified as Murray told him how the railway station could be robbed. He claimed that he communicated that information to "other members of the Provisional I.R.A." and that the Provisional I.R.A. provided another man to help him with the robbery. He also claimed that the same organisation arranged for two employees of British Rail to assist in the robbery. In his affidavit he stated that he received the proceeds of the robbery which was approximately £1,700 and passed them on to the Provisional I.R.A. but in his cross-examination he claims only to have passed over £300 as being all he got from the robbery apart from another sum of £40. The learned trial judge described this discrepancy as "a little contradiction".

4

In his cross-examination he said that "he believed that the (other participants in the robbery) were going to give their share to the Provisional I.R.A." This clearlycontradicts what he says in his affidavit that he received the proceeds of the robbery and that he passed it on to the Provisional I.R.A. There is nothing whatever in his affidavit to suggest that his accomplices had received money and that they were going to pass it on to the ProvisionalI.R.A.

5

In the long and detailed statement which he made to the police in England he stated that the first person to mention the subject of robbing the railway company was Murray and that he then discussed the matter with Murray and the initial intention was to rob a security van. A man named James Whelan then became involved who was introduced into the scheme by the plaintiff and who up to then apparently did not know Murray. This man Whelan was then to bring in another one of his friends who went under the name of "Pat". Later a West Indian named Ossie Solomon was to be involved in the plot, although the plaintiff claims that at the time of the planning of the robbery he did not know that Solomon was to be involved. It is quite clear from the statements made to the police by the plaintiff that the instigator and organiser of this robbery was Richard Murray. There was no suggestion whatever in the statements made to the police or in the evidence given in the High Court that Richard Murray had any connection whatsoever with the I.R.A. or indeed any motive for the robbery other than personal gain. He then, in a statementto the police, described how the man called "Pat" divided up the money after the robbery. There was no suggestion whatever that anybody was going to do anything with the money other than keep it.

6

Neither in the statements to the police nor in his affidavit nor in his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Quinlivan v Conroy (No 2)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • April 14, 2000
    ...ACT 1987 S4 EXTRADITION (AMDT) ACT 1994 S1(3)(b) SHANNON V FANNING 1984 IR 569 CASTIONI, IN RE 1891 1 QB 149 MAGUIRE V KEANE 1986 1 ILRM 235 MCGLINCHEY V WREN 1982 IR 154 FINUCANE V MACMAHON 1990 1 IR 165 BOURKE V AG 1972 IR 36 EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TER......
  • The Extradition Acts 1965-1994, Andrew Martin v Noel Conroy and Michael Jones; Andrew Martin v Judge Miriam Malone and Attorney General
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • May 1, 2001
    ...2000 3 IR 122 B V DPP 1997 2 ILRM 118 DPP V BYRNE 1994 2 IR 236 HOGAN V PRESIDENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 1994 2 IR 513 MAGUIRE V KEANE 1986 ILRM 235 BOURKE V AG 1972 IR 36 KOLCZYSKI, RE 1955 1 AER 31 MAGEE V CULLIGAN 1992 1 IR 223 QUILLIGAN V CONROY & SREENAN 2000 3 IR 154 SLOAN V CULLIGAN......
  • Finucane v McMahon
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1990
    ...R V BURNS 1988 BNIL 9/71 MAGEE, STATE V O'ROURKE 1971 IR 205 SHANNON V IRELAND 1984 IR 548 MCMAHON V LEAHY 1984 IR 525 MAGUIRE V KEANE 1986 ILRM 235 BURNS V AG UNREP HIGH 04.02.74 MCLOUGHLIN V AG UNREP HIGH 5.12.74 MCGARRY & CLARKE V AG UNREP 15.01.76 IRISH TIMES GILHOOLEY V AG 04.06.76......
  • Fusco v O'Dea (No. 2)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1998
    ...The analysis was further developed and in instances took a different approach: See Quinn v. Wren [1985] I.R. 322, Maguire v. Keane [1986] I.L.R.M. 235 and Russell v. Fanning [1986] I.L.R.M. 239The law continued to be amended by the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terr......

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