139 / 482
GAZETTE
APRIL 1989
5.
Duff -v- Sheehan,
unreported Supreme
Court July 5, 1976.
6.
Wilson -v- Sheehan
11979] IR 23.
7. State (Furlong) -v- Kelly 119711 IR 132,
Ó Dálaigh C. J. at 141.
8.
Wyatt -v- McLoughlin
11974] IR 378,
Walsh J. at 401, Henchy J. at 403,
Griffin J. at 404.
9 This effectively reverses Walsh J.'s
judgment in Furlong's case, with which
Budd J. agreed, requiring a proper
factual description of the ingredients of
the offence
10.
Hanlon -v- Fleming
[1981] IR 489 at
499,
R. -v- Neiser
[1958] 3 All E R 622.
11. This last point was not argued in the
Supreme Court, nor was there any
expert evidence to support it.
12.
R. -v- Caldwell
[1982] AC 341.
13.
People (A-G) -v- Dwyer
[1972] IR 416,
all other common law countries reject
this defence as to the positon on
provocation, see
People (DPP) -v-
MacEoin
[1978] IR 3 60 wh i ch
postulates a subjective test.
14. These are partially set out in the Law
Reform Commission Reports on
Receiving (Chapter 2) and Malicious
Damage (Chapter 3 and Chapter 7).
15. A clear warning is given by Henchy J.
at page 499 of the Report in
Hanlon -
v- Fleming
that the system of corres-
pondence has almost broken down and
a new Act is needed simply listing
offences for which extradition will be
granted thereby dispensing with the
correspondence doctrine.
Identity
1. Section 47.
2. Section 53. .
3. Section 29.
4. Section 26(1 Ha).
5. Section 25(a).
6. District Court unreported June 13,
1988 and see
The Irish Times,
June 14,
1988.
7. An admission is, of course, an
exception to the rule against hearsay;
Sullivan -v- Robinson
[1954] IR 161.
8. Section 55 as amended by section 2
of the Extradition (Amendment) Act
1987 (Part III), and section 26 and 27
(Part II).
9. As submitted by the defence in
McVeigh.
10. High Court unreported May 27, 1976.
11. Re Parisot (1889) 5 TLR, 344, D.C.; and
see
R. -v- Finkelstein and Trusovich
[18861 16 Cox. C.C. 107.
The Burden of Proof and the Burden of
Adducing Evidence
1. In the UK the standard is the balance
of probabilities.
2.
Russell -v- Fanning
[1988] ILRM 333.
3. On this generally see Cross Jones and
Card - Criminal Law, Butterworths,
1988, 7.9.
4.
Hill -v- Baxter
[1958] 1 QB 277 at 284.
5.
People (A-G) -v- Quinn
[1965] IR 366
at 382/383.
Points of Departure
1.
State (McFadden) -v- Governor of
Mountjoy
[1981] ILRM 113.
2.
State (Holmes) -v- Furlong
[19671 IR
210.
3. Section 48(3).
•
REST YOUR CASE
Before you take off anywhere this summer,
take the time to investigate the facts about
Sunbound Exclusive.
Whether you feel a calling to a foreign bar,
the need for a break from the bench or simply
to adjourn to a more relaxing jurisdiction, the
verdict is good with Sunbound Exclusive.
Only accommodation offering the highest
standards of comfort and service are judged
suitable by Sunbound.
We rest our case. Now, it's your turn!
SUMBBUMB
SIMPLY SUPERIOR
CONTACT 793511 OR YOUR LOCAL TRAVEL AGENT.
Together
we can give
young people
a chance.
244-246 Ha r o l d 's Cr o ss Ro a d, Du b l in
T e l e p h o n e Du b l in ((01) 977276
B a r n a r d o s
125