239 / 262
Man wanted for theft in England fails in High Court
Application.
In a reserved judgment delivered in the High Court
in Dublin yesterday, Mr. Justice Finlay refused an
application for release under the Extradition Act
brought by David Wyatt, of Rosewood Estate, Ballin-
collig, Cork.
Wyatt had challenged an order made against him in
the District Court for his extradition to England on
foot of a warrant alleging that at Stockport he took a
Ford Tipper lorry, valued at £3,000 without the
consent of the owners.
Mr. Justice Finlay made no order as to costs.
Wyatt challenged the extradition order on the
grounds that no evidence was offered before the District
Justice upon which he could determine that the offence
in the warrant corresponded to any offence under the
law of the State and that the order was therefore in-
valid.
In the course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Finlay
said he found himself driven to the conclusion that
each of the allegations o ffact made against the accused
in the warrant before him (the judge) were material,
though not the only allegations of fact to constitute the
ingredients of theft under the Theft Act, 1968. They
were, of course, at the same time the classically essen-
tial ingredients of the offence of larce y as defined in
the Larceny Act, 1916.
This, said Mr. Justice Finlay, would lead to a con-
clusion that the offence specified in the warrant was a
offence corresponding with an indictable offence in
Ireland, subject to one further argument by counsel on
behalf of Mr. Wyatt.
Mr. Wyatt's counsel, said Mr. Justice Finlay, con-
tended that, having regard to the fact that appropria-
tion was wider and might be carried out in more varied
forms than taking and carrying away, the accused
person, if extradited, might then be faced with a situa-
tion in which he could be convicted of theft under the
1968 Theft Act in England, without the prosecution
having to prove a taking and carrying away as they
now alleged in the warrant, provided that they proved
an appropriation in some other form; and some of the
other forms in which they could prove appropriation
would not be indictable offences in Irish law.
Mr. Justice Finlay said that an Extradition Act was
the necessary consequence of an agreement between
two sovereign States reposing confidence in each other
and that he should not suppose that the court and other
authorities of the country to whom extradition was
sought were using a deceit so as to secure the appre-
hension of the plaintiff.
Apart from this, and in his view more decisive, was
the fact that, under the provisions of the Extradition
Act, 1965, there appeared to be nothing to stop a per-
son, extradited on a warrant in respect of one charge,
being tried for other offences in the courts of the coun-
try to which he was extradited, except for the pro-
vision restricting the extradition of a person where there
were substantial reasons for believing that he would, if
removed from the State on any charge, be prosecuted
or detained for a political offence or an offence con-
nected with a political offence, or an offence under
military law which was not an offence under ordinary
criminal law.
If that was so, then it seemed to him that an asser-
tion that all or part of the allegations of fact contained
in a warrant might not be proved, but that instead of
them some other act or fact sufficient to constitute the
same English offence might be proved instead, was not
a valid objection to the making of an order under
section 47 (of the Extradition Act). He therefore re-
fused the application in this case.
Mr. Wyatt has 21 days to appeal the case to the
Supreme Court.
(The Irish Times,
15 November 1973.)
Doctor wins Count Order against transfer of shares.
A Co. Cork consultant psychologist was granted a
temporary injunction in the High Court yesterday re-
straining Pye (Ireland) Ltd., of Dundrum, Co. Dublin,
through their servant and agent, Mr. Charles O. Stan-
lev, from transferring 419,766 shares in Credit Finance
Ltd.
Dr. Peter Berry, of Skibbereen, whose English ad-
dress was given as Bentley Grange, Green Lane, Burn-
ham, Buckinghamshire, said in an affidavit that in
August last he, along with certain associates, became
interested in acquiring Phillips' block of shares held
by their subsidiaries and associates in Credit Finance.
With that in view he approached Mr. Stanley as the
chairman of Pye (Ireland), in the name of which com-
pany there were then registered 419,766 ordinary
shares of 25p each in Credit Finance.
He had several meetings with Mr. Stanley who, on
September 23 at his home in Clonakilty, Co. Cork,
confirmed to him that he would grant an option to
purchase the shares on or before October 31 last.
On October 1, Mr. Berry said he received an option
granted by Mr. Stanley to purchase the shares in Credit
Finance and on October 26, in writing, he informed
Mr. Stanley that he proposed to exercise his option to
purchase the shares.
On November 14 he was informed by Mr. Van Eyle,
Executive Director of Philips Industries, that Pye
(Ireland) had held a board meeting and that his offer
to purchase the shares had been considered, but that
it had been decided that the company would sell their
shares to a third party.
He immediately sent a telegram to Pye (Ireland)
reminding them of the option he had exercised.
On November 15, he received a telegram from A. and
L. Goodbody, solicitors for Pye (Ireland), alleging
that there Was no agreement in existence between the
company and him.
The order, made by Mr. Justice Kenny, is effective
until after Monday next.
(Irish Independent,
20 November 1973.)
LAW v JONES—Summary of Case
Court of Appeal; Civil Division; Russell, Buckley and
Orr L J J ; 1, 2 March, 10 April 1973.
By an oral agreement made on 17 February 1972
the defendant agreed to sell, and the plaintiff to buy,
a freehold property for £6,500. There was no intention
that the agreement should be subject to contract. On
February 18 the defendant's solicitors wrote to the
plaintiff's solicitors referring to the plaintiff's "proposed
purchase of the . . . property for £6,500 subject to
Contract" and stating that they would obtain the tirle
deeds and submit a draft contract as soon as possible.
On February 25 they wrote again referring to the
earlier letter and enclosing the daft contract. On March
13 the parties agreed on an increased price of £7,000.
236