State (Quinn) v Ryan

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date01 January 1966
Date01 January 1966
Docket Number(1963. 69 S.S.)
The State (Quinn) v. Ryan
THE STATE (at the Prosecution of PHILIP ANTHONY QUINN)
and
Detective Inspector MATTHEW G. RYAN and Deputy Commissioner W. P. QUINN And In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus Act, 1782, And In the Matter of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Acts, 1961 and 1962, And In the Matter of the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924-1961, And In the Matter of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, And In the Matter of the Constitution
(1963. 69 S.S.)

Supreme Court.

High Court.

Supreme Court.

Constitution of Ireland - Statute - Validity - Repugnancy to provisions of the Constitution - Habeas corpus - Prosecutor arrested on English warrant - Warrant held to be bad - Prosecutor released on order of High Court - Prosecutor re-arrested on fresh warrant and removed forthwith from the jurisdiction - Denial of right of access to the Courts - Denial of opportunity to question validity of warrant - Provisions of Petty Sessions (Ir.) Act,1851, s. 29, and consequential provisions repugnant to the Constitution and invalid - Constitution of Ireland, Articles 40 and 50 - Petty Sessions (Ir.) Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict., c. 93), ss. 26 and 29.

Contempt of Court - Conduct of police officers - British warrant backed in Ireland - Arrest of accused in Ireland - Irish police officers conspiring with British police officers to remove accused from jurisdiction - Denial of opportunity to question validity of warrant - Violation of provisions of the Constitution.

Sect. 29 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, which authorises the backing of British warrants in Ireland and the immediate removal from the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts of a person who has been arrested and detained under such a warrant, is repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution and is void and ineffective.

So held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh ó dálaigh C.J., Lavery, Kingsmill Moore, Haugh and Walsh JJ.).

Held further by the Supreme Court that it is contempt of Court for police officers to arrange to remove a prisoner out of the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts on an English warrant with such speed that he has no opportunity to apply to the Courts to question the validity of such warrant or to apply to the Court for an order of habeas corpus.

Notice of Motion.

The prosecutor, Philip Anthony Quinn, was arrested in Dublin on a British warrant. He was an Irish citizen. It was found that there was a defect in the British warrant and accordingly a fresh warrant was applied for in England and was transmitted to Dublin to British police officers already there for the execution of the first warrant. Prior to the transmission of the second warrant the prosecutor had commencedhabeas corpus proceedings, questioning the validity of the first warrant, and the second warrant was received in Dublin while he was in custody pending the outcome of the proceedings on the first warrant. The arrest on foot of the first warrant took place on the 6th July, 1963, and on the 7th July the President of the High Court granted a conditional order of habeas corpus upon the ground that the person named in that warrant was not the prosecutor. On the 12th July the new warrant was issued in London and on the following day Inspector Ryan, the first-named respondent herein, was advised that the earlier warrant was bad. The new warrant was received by Inspector Ryan on the morning of the 15th July, 1963, backed for execution by Deputy Commissioner Quinn. At 11 a.m. on that morning counsel for Inspector Ryan applied ex parte to the President of the High Court to discharge the prosecutor. The President refused to do this and directed that the prosecutor and his counsel should be present in Court. Accordingly, at 11.15 a.m. the prosecutor was brought to the President's Court and counsel for Inspector Ryan renewed his application in the presence of junior counsel for the prosecutor and the prosecutor was ordered to be released. The prosecutor then left Court in company with his counsel, but, being apprehensive that he might be re-arrested, he made an arrangement to meet his counsel who had an engagement in another Court. He parted company with his counsel at approximately 11.20 or 11.25 a.m. He was re-arrested at 11.30 a.m., either in the west courtyard of the Four Courts or in Chancery Street, the exact location not being made clear in evidence as there was a conflict of testimony between the police and the prosecutor. He was taken immediately to Carrickarnon, on the border between the State and Northern Ireland, in a Garda car and transferred there on the Northern side of the Border to a Royal Ulster Constabulary car and he was subsequently taken to England.

Further details and facts appear from the judgments.

On the 15th July, 1963, the prosecutor applied to Mr. Justice Teevan for a conditional order of habeas corpus. At the hearing he was represented by Mr. P. A. O Síocháin S.C. and Mr. L. Meagher. Mr. Justice Teevan, refusing the order sought, delivered the following judgment:—

From the above judgment the prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court which heard evidence from the prosecutor's solicitor, Mr. J. P. MacD. Concannon, on the 16th July, 1963. At 4.30 p.m. the Chief Justice delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court which was as follows:—

From the above decision the prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court (1). The grounds of the appeal were as follows:—

"The High Court was wrong in law and in fact 1, in holding that the prosecutor was in lawful custody when arrested on the 15th day of July, 1963, for the purpose of being handed over to the police of another State to be removed out of the jurisdiction;

2, In holding that the warrant on which the prosecutor was arrested was lawfully and validly executed by the arrest of the prosecutor by Detective Constable Alan Johns of 'X' Division of London Metropolitan Police at Bridewell Garda Siochana Station, in the City of Dublin, at 11.30 a.m. on the 15th day of July, 1963, as per return of execution shown on copy of said warrant exhibited by Detective Inspector Matthew G. Ryan in his affidavit of the 19th July, 1963;

3, In holding that the provisions of s. 29 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, relating to the backing of

warrants by the Inspector General and the Deputy Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, are part of the law of Ireland by virtue of the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann and of An Bunreacht;

4, In holding that s. 29 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, which relates to the backing of warrants by the Inspector General and the Deputy Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary was in force on the 6th day of December, 1962;

5, In holding that the Adaptation Order was effective and made with statutory authority;

6, In holding that the jurisdiction of the Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary in backing warrants under s. 29 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, was qua Justice and not qua police officer;

7, In holding that the requirement that the person backing the warrant should certify on the Form Gc to render the certificate effective had been complied with;

8, In holding that the jurisdiction of the Inspector General and the Deputy Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary to back warrants under s. 29 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, was qua Justice and not qua police officer as transferred to the District Court;

9, In holding that the endorsement on the warrant by Deputy Commissioner W. P. Quinn was sufficient to justify the arrest despite the failure of the Deputy Commissioner to certify as required by Form Gc;

10, In holding that the Adaptation Order could adapt or modify s. 29 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, so as to render the backing of a warrant effective in an area in which the Inspector General and the Deputy Inspector General never had jurisdiction, namely, the Dublin Metropolitan Police Area;

11, In holding that to justify detention proof was not necessary or required (i) that the person issuing the warrant had jurisdiction to do so;

(ii) That the offence charged in the warrant was at the time of arrest an offence against English law;

(iii) That the warrant was effective in the area outside which it was issued and that it was a good warrant;

(iv) That Detective Constable Alan Johns had jurisdiction to execute the warrant outside the area and jurisdiction in which it was issued;

12, In holding that the arrest and the detention of the prosecutor was good in law;

13, In holding that the person issuing the warrant had jurisdiction to do so, that the offence charged was at the time of detention an offence against English law, and that the warrant was effective outside the area in which it was issued and was good despite the fact that, at the date and time when the warrant was issued, a warrant to like effect and purpose was already in existence and on which the prosecutor was arrested and held in custody, and that Detective Constable Alan Johns had jurisdiction to execute the warrant outside the area in which it was issued;

14, In holding that Detective Inspector Matthew G. Ryan who arrested the prosecutor was entitled to release him to Detective Constable Alan Johns and that the said Detective Inspector Ryan was not bound to bring the prosecutor before the Justice who issued the warrant or any Justice;

15, In holding that the provisions of s. 31 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, have not been affected by the provisions of the District Justices (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, s. 4, sub-ss. 3 and 4; the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, s. 89, sub-s. 4, and similar statutes of criminal jurisdiction and the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, s. 15, which provides that any person charged with an offence shall on arrest be brought before a Justice of the District Court having jurisdiction to deal with it, to be dealt with according to law;

16, In holding that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
204 cases
  • Conway v Irish National Teachers Organisation
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 14 February 1991
    ...LIABILITY ACT 1961 S14(4) BROOME V CASSELL & CO 1972 AC 1027 DILLON V DUNNES STORES & ORS UNREP SUPREME 20.12.68 QUINN, STATE V RYAN 1965 IR 70 CONSTITUTION ART 42.4 UREN V FAIRFAX & SONS LTD 1967 ALR 25 AUSTRALIA CONSOLIDATED PRESS LTD V UREN 1969 1 AC 590 DPP, PEOPLE V KENNY 1990 ILRM......
  • State (Trimbole) v The Governor of Mountjoy Prison
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 26 March 1985
    ......Lynch [1982] I.R. 64; [1981] I.L.R.M. 389. D.P.P. v. Joyce [1985] I.L.R.M. 206. The State (Quinn) v. Ryan [1965] I.R. 70; (1964) 100 I.L.T.R. 105. Application of Woods [1970] I.R. 154. The State (Browne) v. Feran ......
  • Krupecki v The Minister for Justice and Equality No.2
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 October 2018
    ...reasons as opposed to quashing the decision. The doctrine that a point not argued is a point not decided ( The State (Quinn) v. Ryan [1965] I.R. 70 at 120) applies here. Submissions that the statute requires reasons 7 Mr. Lynn submits that there is a heightened obligation to set out reason......
  • Laurentiu v Minister for Justice
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 2000
    ...FOR IMMIGRATION 1992 176 CLR 1 CANADA, AG V CAIN & GILHULA 1906 AC 542 VATTEL LAW OF NATIONS BOOK 1 S231; BOOK 2 S125 QUINN, STATE V RYAN 1965 IR 70 KOHN CONSTITUTION OF IRISH FREE STATE (1932) 181 CONSTITUTION ART 6.1 CONSTITUTION ART 6.2 ALIENS ACT 1935 S5(8) ALIENS ACT 1935 S5(5) LYNCH......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Trials in absentia and the cuts to criminal legal aid
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 78-6, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...N. Padfield, ‘Transforming Legal Aid’ (2013) Arch Rev 5 at 6.233. RvMullen [2000] QB 520 at 534C–D (Rose LJ).234. The State (Quinn) vRyan [1965] IR 70, 122 (O´Da´laigh CJ).235. RvBertrand (1867) LR 1 PC 520 at 534.236. O. Bowcott, ‘Criminal Legal Aid Fee Cuts for Lawyers Confirmed by Justic......
  • Constitutional Limits on Bills of Rights Introduced by a State or Territory
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review Nbr. 35-3, September 2007
    • 1 September 2007
    ...399 (Lord Diplock); Nilabati Bahera v State of Orissa (1993) Cri LJ 2899, 2912 (Anand J) (Supreme Court of India); State (Quinn) v Ryan [1965] IR 70, 122 (Ó Dálaigh CJ) (Irish Supreme Court); Byrne v Ireland [1972] IR 241 (Walsh J) (Irish Supreme Court). 47 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) pream......
  • T.D. Re-Considered: Constructing A New Approach to Enforcement of Rights
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review Nbr. VII-2004, January 2004
    • 1 January 2004
    ...she remarked: 7 Ibid., at 630. Keane C.J. was referring to the case of Brady v. Cavan Count , Council [1999] 4 IR 99. Ibid., at 640. 9 [1965] IR 70. l" 2001] 2 IR 545, at 709. 2004] TD. Reconsidered I would not exclude the rare and exceptional case, where, to protect constitutional rights, ......
  • Overruling the protectionist exclusionary rule
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 19-4, October 2015
    • 1 October 2015
    ...McGrath (2005: para. 7.46).23. [2015] IESC 31 per O’Donnell J at [6].24. Ibid. per McKechnie J at [236].25. As per The State (Quinn) vRyan [1965] IR 70.26. See People (DPP) vKenny [1990] 2 IR 110, 142 per Lynch J.27. Final Report of the Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group (2007: 166).2......
  • 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