169 / 294
of the guns recently stolen from a Drogheda police
station. South Louth policemen are desperate to recover
these weapons in order to show their efficiency and
satisfy their superiors who are more than somewhat
upset at their carelessness. They believe the I.R.A. stole
the guns which, incidentally, include a magnificent
Israeli-made machine gun. They are wrong. An ordinary
thief came upon them by chance and stole them. He
approached the I.R.A. and made a financial deal with
them.
" Following the theft, Mr. Mac Raghnaill was taken
/nto custody and held for about 12 hours. He knew
nothing and was let go. Since this, Special Branch men
have gone to extreme and very strange lengths to get
the guns. In places as far apart as Cork and Monaghan
they approached relatives of known volunteers and
made a curious offer; give the stolen guns back and we
will give you other guns in exchange, plus £200 for your
trouble and no questions will be asked.
'"This offer brought no results. It was then that
the arrangement was made with a certain gang, mem-
bers of which already have a working understanding
with certain policemen on both sides of the Border. This
is gangsterism of the 1920s Chicago variety. It must
not be allowed to continue."
Mr. Justice Pringle said there were two distinct ques-
tions for decision: (1) was there any contempt? and (2)
if there was, was it such contempt as would require or
justify the court in making an order against the
respondent?
On the first question, the judge said he must look at
the article in the light of the circumstances which
existed at the time of its publication. The trials of three
men, Maguire, Fleming and Flynn, were pending. It
was not known whether or not they, or any of them,
were to be tried by Justice or by a jury. What would be
the likely effects of having read the article on a ju'or
empannelled to try any of these three men, asked Mr.
Justice Pringle.
Contempt to implicate untried thief
The judge said he thought the main impression left
in the mind of a reader would be that the article was
directed against the Special Branch detectives who were
stated, among other things, to have instigated the beating
up of Mr. Mac Raghnaill and to have offered other guns
and money for the stolen guns.
But such a juror would also read the categorical
statement that the person who stole the guns was an
ordinary thief who came upon them by chance and
then approached the I.R.A. and made a financial deal
with them.
" I consider that these statements by a writer who
held himself out as knowing the facts in regard to the
stealing of the guns, would tend or be calculated to
prejudice the fair trial of Maguire and they thus, in
my opinion, constituted a contempt of court.'
Article deemed contempt because it would influence
jurors
He said that similarly the statements in the article
that the beating of Mr. Mac Raghnaill was carried out
at the instigation of Special Branch detectives by mem-
bers of a gang which had a work'ng understanding with
certain policemen on both sides of the Border, and that
this was gangsterism of the 1920s Chicago variety,
would tend to be calculated to influence a juror who had
read the article and who was called upon to try Fleming
and Flynn and to prejudice the trial in their favour.
In his opinion the article did constitute a contempt of
court and he then had to consider whether this con-
tempt was of such a nature as would require or justify
the court in making an order against the company, the
editor, or the writer.
Contempt not deemed serious
" I have come to the conclusion that the publication
was not likely as a matter of fact to have created any
prejudice to the trials and that therefore, the contempt
in this case was not of such a serious nature as to call
for the intervention of the court. I will, therefore, allow
the cause shown and discharge the conditional order."
;
In the case in which he found for the Attorney
General, Pringle J. allowed him one-third of the total
costs against all three respondents. In the second case he
made no order as to costs, where the respondents abide
their own costs.
He allowed the respondents a stay of execution of
one month in the event of an appeal.
Minister loses action about landing fees.
Te Minister for Transport and Power has failed in his
action against Trans World Airlines Inc. in which he
had claimed £19,974 in landing fees.
The President of the High Court (Mr. Justice
O'Keeffe) in a reserved judgment delivered yesterday,
dismissed the action and awarded costs to T.W.A. On
the application of Mr. V. Landy, S.C. (for the Minister),
he granted a stay of execution.
The Minister had claimed that the amount sought
was due in respect of increases in landing fees of 27£
per cent since April 1969. The company, in its defence,
admitted having agreed to a
per cent increase, but
it contested the authority of the Minister to impose the
other 20 per cent increase.
When the case was opened last month it was stated
that it was a test case against T.W.A. and that other
major airlines were defendants in similar proceedings
which were pending.
Rights to recover fees not proved
In his judgment yesterday, the President reviewed the
arguments put forward, but said he did not feel it
necessary to review the evidence. He said he considered
that the Minister had not shown that he had any rights
to recover the landing fees claimed in this action and
that the action should be dismissed.
In his judgment, Mr. Justice O'Keeffe stated that
counsel for the Minister had submitted that as the
Minister was entitled by virtue of Section 37 of the
Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, to establish
and maintain aerodromes, he must necessarily be entitled
to impose a charge on tho:e who used them in respect
of the use of the aerodromes. It was for the Minister
to determine the amount of the charge he would make,
with the possible restriction that the charge must be
reasonable in relation to the expenses incurred by the
Minister.
If Section 37 of the Act authorised the Minister to
make charges in respect of the use of the aerodromes,
h* cou'.d find nothing in it to limit the amount of such
charges to what was reasonable. The plaintiff's con-
tention was in effect that the section authorised the
Minister for Transport and Power to carry on the
business of aerodrome proprietors. It must be under-
stood that the plaintiff was a corporation sole head of
170