704 / 736
nised rules. An extreme case was
R, v Soblen —
(1963) 2 Q.B. 243 — where the defendant fled
to Israel after having been convicted of spying
in the United States. The Israeli authorities re
fused to accept him, and put him on a plane in
order to return him to America. Before reaching
London, he inflicted wounds on himself, and had
to be treated in hospital, there the Israel airline
subsequently refused to book him as a passenger
for America. The Home Secretary, nevertheless,
made a deportation order and this was held valid.
He was subsequently sent to America but died on
the way.
(3)
Freedom of Citizens to return to their own
country.
International Conventions proclaim that "no one
shall be denied entry
to a State of which
he is a national". Nevertheless, the British Immi
gration Act, 1968 denied access
to Britain to
Kenyan Asians, who were British subjects; the
position was improved under the appeals pro
cedure in the 1969 Act, but appears to be again
restrictive in
the 1971 Bill.
(4)
Freedom for citizens to remain within their
own country.
Section 14 of the Irish Extradition Act, 1965
forbids the extradition of Irish citizens unless the
relevant provisions apply. Part III of the Act
provides for the endorsement and execution of
warrants between Ireland and Britain, and has
given rise to difficulties; however, the Supreme
Court in "The State (Quinn) v Ryan" — (1965)
I.R. 106 — has put an end to the former practice
whereby the police suddenly removed an accused
from the jurisdiction of the Irish Court before
giving him an opportunity to test whether the
extradition order was valid, which was character
ised as a plan to defeat the rule of law.
Under Part II of the 1965 Act, there is, how
ever, no
requirement that, before a person is
surrendered, there must be prima facie evidence
of guilt, and it would seem that, unless the accused
objects to taking Court proceedings, he can be
removed without reasonable grounds. It would
seem that in 1963, a Mrs. Cronin was brought
back to Ireland on an unjustified warrant, mean
while she had lost her job in England. She awaited
trial for 18 months and was then acquitted. The
State may say to a person: "We will not proceed
against you if you leave." The accused is then
presented with a choice — if he refuses to go, the
sentence will probably be more severe — but if
he goes, he is deprived of his right of appeal
against conviction.
(5)
Freedom to enter a State other than one's
own.
The control over entry into Britain of aliens is
largely administrative, and this gives adminis
trators a wide discretion. It will be recalled that
aliens who wished to study scientology were not
permitted to land in Britain. This is a dangerous
and undesirable departure, which has for instance
been exercised by not permitting North Viet
namese
to enter Britain
to give lectures. The
recent case, where Rudi Duschke was refused
to be allowed to stay in Britain on the grounds
of security, has been condemned by the Cam
bridge dons, as this was merely an alleged threat
to national security in the future. Britain and
Ireland signed the European Social Charter, but
were found to have violated Article 18 by an
International Commission. If Ireland enters the
European Community, she will have to observe
the rules much more strictly.
The problem of political asylum presents itself
under two facets and this arises from the problem
of "The
Freedom
of a Citizen
to remain in an
alien State."
This freedom is qualified in Britain,
and is always subject either to formal deportation
proceedings, or to extradition proceedings at the
request of the State whose national is involved.
Although extradition is not granted for political,
military or revenue offences, nevertheless,
the
concept is a difficult one. In
Duggan v Tapley —
(1952) I.R. — the Supreme Court held that the
rules of extradition must have a definite context.
There appears to be no definite principle other
than sentiment for granting asylum to a political
offender. In
R. v Schtraks —
(1964) A.C. 556,
the facts were complicated, but briefly the accused
was arrested in order to be deported to Israel for
perjury and child stealing.
He contended un
successfully that the offences were of a political
character, but the House of Lords held: —
242