14 / 736
other
substantive
revenue
offences
involving
£84,000, laid down guidance for the conduct of
lengthy trials. The trial at the Central Criminal
Court had lasted 81 days, the second longest on
record, and cost some £150,000.
Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson, giving the judg–
ment, said the Court viewed with great concern
the length of the proceedings, because whenever
a trial assumed such proportions an inordinate
burden was cast on all concerned and the risks of
injustice were greatly increased.
On account of the increasing complexity of tax
laws months of investigation were necessary. In–
vestigations involved examination of many docu–
ments and protracted interviews concerning 'hem.
In the present case the trial judge had had little
opportunity to analyse the mass of documents and
to decide whether it was necessary to hold a single
trial as the prosecution insisted, or whether the
counts could be severed. It was essential
that
judges should be given time to form an opinion
on possible severability of counts, and hours spent
on such consideration would save days of trial
time.
To assist judges to assess a case for such pur–
poses, arrangements should be made before com–
mittal for a transcript of the opening speech for
the prosecution and of any submissions by the
defence to be sent to the trial judge with the
depositions and exhibits. Such a procedure in the
present case would probably have meant some
severance resulting in the saving of a court week
at a cost of £750 a day. If a judge found the
suggested procedure imposed an undue burden on
the court and jurors, and was, therefore contrary
to the interests of justice, he had a duty to ask
the prosecution to recast their approach, even if
it entailed an adjournment.
Finally, counsel for the defence, while in no
way detracting from his duty to his client, should,
in the interests of justice, exercise a proper dis–
cretion to avoid prolonging a case unnecessarily.
Where submissions were made seeking to impugn
long-established rules of law or procedure, there
was no reason why they should not be made
briefly with a view to reserving the position for
a higher court.
In spite of
the protracted and complicated
nature of the proceedings in this case the trial
judge, Judge King-Hamilton, and jury had dis–
charged
their duty with meticulous care and
there had been no miscarriage of justice. The
appeals were therefore dismissed. (Regina v Sim-
monds and Others,
The Times,
llth March 1967).
CASES OF THE MONTH
Repayment of Monies by Revenue Commissioners
In a reserved judgment delivered in the Supreme
Court on llth May 1967 the Revenue Commis–
sioners were ordered to repay to Mr. H. A. Dolan
a sum of £19,193 which he was overcharged for
customs duty on goods imported into the country.
The case dealt
(inter alia)
with the Section 25 of
the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. It was sub–
mitted on behalf of the defendant that the sec–
tion applied only to cases where the importer had
made some error in his calculations in the course
of submitting his goods for assessment of customs
duty but the Supreme Court held that such a
case was covered but did not consider that the
section has such a restricted meaning. On deliver–
ing of a judgment of the Court, Mr. Justice
Walsh stated that the section :
(1) Established a period of limitation; and
(2) Envisaged
a
claim
being made
to
the
Revenue Commissioners for
the return of
monies overpaid; and
(3) Imposed upon the commissioners the duty
of adjudicating upon the claim.
The Judge further stated that the statute is not
to be construed as merely conferring a discretion
to return the overpayments. The correct con–
struction of the provision in question is that upon
the fulfilment of the conditions laid down by the
section, the customs authorities are not lawfully
authorised to do otherwise than to return the
overpayments.
(Dolan v Neligan, Collector of
Customs for
the Port of
the City of Dublin,
11/5/1967).
Extension of Solicitor's Duty
The Court of Appeal in England held that a
solicitor who had inadequately warned a widow
of 47 against the advisability of lending £4,000
to an American citizen with whom she had been
infatuated and who had subsequently failed to
repay her; was liable to her in damages for the
loss which she had sustained.
Lord Justice Danckwerts said that, although he
accepted that the duty normally owed by a solici–
tor to his client only extended to legal advice, he
might also undertake to advise on business mat–
ters and he then owed a duty to advise compe–
tently, fully and not misleadingly.
(Neushul v
Mellish and Harkavy,
The Times,
12th Mav
1967).
10