The Gazette 1971

offence in quesion here is or is not an offence under the law of the State." In his opinion, the district justice's order was made without jurisdiction and, in consequence the defend- ant's detention was unlawful and he should be set at

to satisfy himself as to the law of the "place" where the offence was alleged to have been committed. He was entitled to look at the description of the offence in the foreign warrant to ascertain that the offence so de- scribed was one which did not correspond with an offence under the law of this State, which was an in- dictable offence or was punishable on summary convic- tion by imprisonment for a maximum period of six months. If it appeared to the District Justice that the offences in the warrant did not correspond with any offence under the law of the State, then he did not make the committal order. The direction of the District Justice for the delivery of the accused "into the custody of a duly authorised member of a police force of England and Wales" had been challenged as being insufficient. Mr. Justice McLoughlin said the only view he wished to express on this matter was that it could be more appropriate and more conformable with the foreign warrant to substitute for the words "a duly authorised member" the more precise words "a constable of Mid Anglia Constabulary, a police force of England and Wales". He would not invalidate the committal order for this lack of precision and would uphold the order of the district justice. Within three hours of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Furlong case, the court ordered to be released from custody a 48-year-old Englishman who claimed he was a bishop of the "Old Roman Church". The Chief Justice referred to the court's ruling in the Furlong case and directed that William Lynn-Walls, be released on the ground that the warrant, under which he was sought in England, was not addressed to the correct police force. William Walls had taken his appeal to the Supreme Court after the High Court had refused to quash a dis- trict court order for his extradition. The District Court had ordered his extradition on foot of an English war- rant charging him with dishonestly obtaining a radio by false pretences. He had claimed that the warrant was bad on a num- ber of grounds and said that in England he had been closely associated with an independent illegal organisa- tion of which he was intelligence officer. He said that he was a bishop of the pre-Reformation Church in Britain and was recognised by the Archbishop of Canteb- bury. He said he had asked the Pope to intervene in the case on his behalf. He said he had escaped to the Republic of Ireland from British Intelligence and Ulster Protestant Loyal- ists and that his life would be in danger if he remained in Britain. The Irish Times (30th July, 1971) DAMAGES TO ACTOR UPHELD ON APPEAL The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed the appeal by the Dublin publishing company, Creation Ltd., against a jury's award of £600 in the action brought against them in April, 1970 by Godfrey Quigley, pro- fessional actor and theatrical director, of Abbotsford Hotel, Harcourt street, Dublin, arising out of an article in the magazine "Women's Choice Weekly." In his judgment with which the other members of the court agreed, Mr. Justice Walsh said that Creation 129 ADDRESS OF POLICE FORCE NOT CORRECTLY GIVEN

liberty immediately. Difficulties not seen

The enactment of the Theft Act, 1968, had created difficulties which could not have been foreseen in 1965 (when the Extradition Act was made law). "It was now idle to speculate whether if the Theft Act had been in force in 1965 the Oireachtas would have preferred to specify nominatim in a schedule the offences in respect of which extradition was to be granted. "Until some such simple formula in law the District Court, and, on a habeas corpus application, the High Court and, on appeal, this Court must prepare them- selves for the difficulties of determining what offence (if any) is the corresponding offence under the law of the State." Mr. Justice Walsh agreed with the view expressed by the Chief Justice and dealt with another point. He said that he was of the opinion that the order of the District Justice was bad because it directed the delivery of the prisoner into the custody of a duly authorised member of "a police force of England and Wales" which, he said, might be a member of any one of dozens of police forces. The order, said Mr. Justice Walsh, should have directed the delivery of custody in this case to a duly authorised member of the police force of Mid-Anglia which was the police force to which the warrant was originally directed for execution by the English Court from which the warrant had been issued. The Chief Justice agreed with Mr. Justice Walsh on the question of direction. Mr. Justice Budd agreed with the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Walsh. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, delivering a minority judg- ment, said he considered the test as to whether the offence specified in the warrant had or had not a cor- responding offence in this country, should be tested in relation to the action of the person accused. There appeared to him to be no possible ambiguity or doubt about the ordinary meaning of the word "steal". In Section 9 of the English Theft Act, 1968, it was apparently required that there be proof of entry and of being a trespasser, as well as the stealing in order to secure a conviction. In this country stealing was an offence without such additional proofs. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said that, in his opinion, it was clear that the Extradition Act, 1965 and the English Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965, had a common purpose—the extradition from one jurisdic- tion to the other of persons charged with ordinary criminal offences properly triable where the offence was alleged to have been committed. In both statutes extradition was prohibited in respect of offences of a fiscal character, of offences against military law and of political offences. Subject to these exceptions, he was satisfied that actions alleged against any person, which, if proved, amounted to a criminal offence in each coun- try, irrespective of how a charge might be framed, re- quired the operation of the extradition procedure to be applied. In his view the offence specified in the English warrant corresponded to the offence of larceny in this country. Mr. Justice McLoughlin, in his dissenting judgment, said that in his opinion a District Justice was not required