State (Whelan) v Governor of Mountjoy Prison

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McWILLIAM J.
• Judgment Date: 09 February 1976
• Neutral Citation: 1977 WJSC-HC 1446
• Date: 09 February 1976
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 263 S.S. /75

1977 WJSC-HC 1446

THE HIGH COURT

263 S.S. /75

STATE (WHELAN) v. GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON

BAR

THE STATE (WHELAN)

.v.

GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON

1 Judgment delivered the 9th February1976 McWILLIAM J.

2 The Applicant was on 25th April 1975 sentenced to terms of imprisonment in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on charges of housebreaking and larceny. There appear to have been nineteen charges involved, to each of which he pleaded guilty. On 1st May 1975 he was also sentenced in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court on a charge of loitering with intent to commit a felony at Waterloo Road on 30th January 1974.

3 On 28th February 1974 a warrant had been issued from the Dublin Metropolitan District Court for the arrest of the Applicant on a charge of breaking and entering a dwellinghouse at 41 Waterloo Road, Ballabridge on 28th January 1974. On 28th February 1974 this warrant was endorsed by a London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate under the provisions of section 1 of the English Banking of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965, and the Applicant was brought back to Ireland.

4 When the Applicant had been returned to Ireland for trial,it was discovered that an essential witness for the prosecution of this offence had left her address and could not be found. The State then proceeded with the charges in the Circuit Court to which the Applicant pleaded guilty. These charges had no connection with the offence named in the warrant for arrest. The charge of loitering to which the Applicant also pleaded guilty was made in respect of an offence taking place two days after the offence alleged in the warrant for arrest. Thus these two offences would appear not to be connected although the location is the same. The State then applied on 8th May 1975 to have the charge in respect of the offence alleged in the warrant struck out and this was done.

5 Counsel for the Applicant argues that the Rule of Speciality applies so that proceedings could not have been taken against the Applicant for any of the offences for which he was sentenced as they were committed before he was returned from England and were not mentioned in the warrant for his arrest. He bases this argument first on the ground that section 3(2) of the Extradition Act, 1870, which applies the Rule of Speciality has not been repealed in England and is still applicable to extradition there although there is no such provision in the Banking of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965. He also...