Quinn v Wren

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Hederman J.,McCarthy J.,Finlay C.J.
• Judgment Date: 28 February 1985
• Neutral Citation: 1985 WJSC-SC 664
• Date: 28 February 1985
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [1983 No. 668 Sp.]

1985 WJSC-SC 664

The Supreme Court

Finlay C.J.

Henchy J.

Griffin J.

Hederman J.

McCarthy J.

311/84

QUINN v. WREN

In the Matter of the Extradition Act 1965

Between

John Patrick Quinn

Plaintiff/Appellant

and

Laurence Wren

Defendant/Respondent

Citations:

BOURKE V AG 1972 IR 36, 107 ILTR 33

CONSTITUTION ART 15.6

CONSTITUTION ART 39

EAST DONEGAL CO-OP V AG 1970 IR 317

EXTRADITION ACT 1965

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50

FORGERY ACT 1913 S6

MCDONALD V BORD NA gCON 1965 IR 217, 100 ILTR 89

MCGLINCHEY V WREN 1982 IR 154, 1983 ILRM 169

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 S1(3)

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 S1

SHANNON V FANNING 1985 ILRM 385

THEFT ACT 1968 S15(1)

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Extradition

Exception - Political offence - Offence connected with a political offence - Foreign warrant - Warrant reciting charge that plaintiff obtained in England money under false pretences - Plaintiff using money to further aims of unlawful organisation - Organisation's purpose to overthrow the State - Release under s. 50 of Extradition Act, 1965, refused - Decision of Gannon J. (5/11/84) affirmed - (311/84 - Supreme Court - 28/2/85).

Quinn v. Wren

WORDS & PHRASES

"Political offence"

Criminal law - Extradition - Foreign warrant - Warrant reciting charge that plaintiff obtained in England money under false pretences - Plaintiff using money to further aims of unlawful organisation - Organisation's purpose to overthrow the State - Release under s. 50 of Extradition Act, 1965, refused - Decision of Gannon J. (5/11/84) affirmed - (311/84 - Supreme Court - 28/2/85).

Quinn v. Wren

1 Judgment delivered on the 28th day of February 1985by Finlay C.J. (Henchy J. r Griffin J. Concurring)

2 This is an appeal brought by the Plaintiff against the dismissal by Gannon J. in the High Court of his claim for an Order directing his release pursuant to section 50 of the Extradition Act 1965.

3 By Order of the District Court dated the 19th December 1983 it was directed that the Plaintiff should be delivered into the custody of a member of the London Metropolitan Police Force for conveyance to Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, London, on a Warrant charging him with an offence contrary to section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968, the particulars of the offence being that he "did, by deception, with a false pretence made withintent to defraud, dishonestly obtain £600 cash, from Barclay's Bank by falsely pretending that National Westminster Bank Travellers Cheques Nos. 5-05302602-614 were a good and valid order, with the intention of permanently depriving the said Barclay's Bank of the said property". The offence thus charged was held in the Order of the District Court to correspond with the offence under the law of the State created by section 6 of the Forgery Act, 1913.

4 No question has arisen with regard to the form of this Order nor with regard to the validity or completeness of the documentation leading up to the making of it.

5 The Plaintiff's claim is that the offence with which he is charged is either a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence within the meaning of those words contained in section 50 of the Act of 1965 or, in the alternative, that there are substantial reasons for believing that the Plaintiff will, if removed from the State under the Act, be prosecuted or detained for a politicaloffence within the meaning of subsection (2)(b) of section 50 of the Act of 1965.

The Facts

6 The proceedings were heard on affidavit and the Plaintiff's claim for relief was based on his own affidavit, the facts deposed to in which were not contested by any other evidence. These facts have been neatly and briefly summarised in the judgment of Gannon J. delivered on the 15th November 1984; no question has arisen as to the accuracy of that summary or of the findings of fact thus made in the High Court and the facts so found relevant to the issues arising on this appeal are asfollows:

7 2 "(1) He committed the offence to which the Warrantrelates.

8 (2) At the time of committing the offence he was a member of the Irish National Liberation Army, otherwise INLA.

9 (3) The INLA is a proscribed organisation.

10 (4) He committed the offence on the instructions of the INLA.

11 (5) The nature of the offence and the manner in which and place where it was to be committed was determined by the INLA.

12 (6) He gave the money obtained by him in the commission of the offence to a person believed to be a fellow member of the INLA.

13 (7) The purpose of the offence was to obtain in this criminal manner money for use by the INLA.

14 (8) He had committed a number of similar offences while a member of the INLA on the instructions and with the co-operation of other members of the INLA.

15 (9) He did not commit this or any of these offences for his own benefit, and all monies thus obtained by him were so obtained for the use of and given to the INLA.

16 10. The INLA has need of and uses such money to "fund theircampaign".

17 (11) The campaign of the INLA is "The aims and objectives of this organisation are the establishment of a thirty-two countyworkers" republic by force of arms and inter alia a military campaign against the forces of the Crown within the six counties of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and elsewhere""

18 The other material evidence was firstly contained in an Affidavit of Florence O'Donoghue, a barrister of the English Bar and also of the Irish Bar, who deposed that as a matter of law the Irish NationalLiberation Army was a proscribed organisation, proscribed under section 1(3) of the English Statute entitled "The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976" which made provision for the conviction and punishment of persons who belonged or professed to belong to proscribed organisations. Jeraine Dickin Olsen, Barrister-at-Law, of the English Bar, and an Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions in England, deposed that the Director of Public Prosecutions in English law had a right to intervene in a private prosecution for the purpose of offering no evidence, having previously given an undertaking that the Defendant would not be prosecuted for his part in a particular offence and that she had a right, pursuant to the Statute establishing the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions in England, to do any act or thing which the Director is required or authorised to do and undertaking in pursuance of that right that the Plaintiff would not be put on trial in any part of England or Wales in respect of an offenceor offences under section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. A further Affidavit of John Christopher Barnes, a Detective Inspector serving with the Central Cheque Squad, New Scotland Yard, London, deposed to the fact that the offences with which the Plaintiff is charged and in respect of which his delivery was sought on Warrant, are offences punishable irrespective of the motive of the person's political activities and that there was no question of those offences being prosecuted only because they might be related to the aims of a political party.

The Law

19 In the course of the submissions made to the...