127 / 196
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
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
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.
ADDRESS OF POLICE FORCE
NOT CORRECTLY GIVEN
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