260 / 274
GAZETTE
J
UNE
/J
U
LY
1976
The ban, said Mr. Crummey,
might endanger the existence of
the company in that it was of lim-
ited value to supply contraceptives,
in accordance with the decision of
the Supreme Court in
McGee v. the
Attorney General
(1974) I- R- 284,
without being able also to provide
the necessary information to persons
wishing to use contraceptives.
He asked that the Censorship
Board's order be quashed as it was
contrary to natural justice and con-
trary to the Constitution, and he set
out a number of grounds. Among
these was a claim that the Board,
in making its decision, was exercis-
ing a judicial function; it was an
unlawful violation of the right of
freedom of expression and freedom
of opinion and it interfered with
the right to marital privacy, which
involved the right to determine the
size of one's family and the right to
have access to contraceptives. He
claimed that the result might be un-
wanted pregnancies.
No grounds whatsoever had been
given by the Board to justify the in-
decent and obscene label applied to
this booklet and the booklet could
not in any way come within this
definition. It was for the public good
that the booklet be distributed.
Mr. O'Hanlon said there were
several grounds of challenge open,
One was whether the Act permitted
the Board to prohibit the sale and
distribution of a booklet which
contained
nothing
more
than
material in relation to methods of
contraception which had been
recognised by the Supreme Court in
the case of
McGee v. the Attorney
General
I. R. 284 to be permissable
and lawful in this country- The
Supreme Court had also recognised
that it was permissible to import
contraceptives devices, and to that
extent the lawfulness of the activity
was recognised by the decision-
"If the booklet contains nothing
further than information of an
educational nature in relation to
these matters, and if the Act is wide
enough to permit a finding by the
Board of indecency and obscenity
against such a publication and a
total banning of its distribution, it is
submitted that such a power
vested in the Board would seem to
be in conflict with the constitutional
guarantees contained in Articles 40
to 42 of the Constitution", said Mr.
O'Hanlon.
Mr. Justice McMahon said it was
clear that the issues raised should
be fully considered and therefore
a conditional order would be issued.
When Mr. O'Hanlon asked that
the grounds should also include a
claim that Sections 6 and 7 of the
Act were contrary to the constitut-
ional rights of the prosecutors, Mr.
Justice McMahon asked him to
supply the Registrar with the
grounds he wished to put forward,
and he directed service on the Board
and on the Chief State Solicitor on
behalf of the Attorney General.
Crummey v. Censorship of Publica-
tions Board — McMahon J. —
10th December, 1976.
Note—The Judgment in thise case
is not available.
EXTRADITION
Judge hits at crimes in the name of
Patriotism.
In the High Court in Dublin on
10 December Mr. Justice Butler re-
ferred to petty criminals trying to
draw around themselves a mantle of
Irish republicanism and patriotism
in order to avoid proper prosecution
for criminal offences which had
absolutely no political connection.
In refusing to prohibit the extra-
dition of a man wanted in Preston,
England, on a charge of stealing a
quantity of tuna fish, he said that
this was such a case.
"In my view, Irish republicanism
and Irish nationalism has a long,
proud and chivalrous history, but in
recent years numerous crimes have
been committed in its name", he
said. "Enough unchivalrous and des-
picable acts have been done with-
out petty criminals getting in on the
act, and trying to draw around
themselves a mantle of Irish re-
publicanism and patriotism in order
to avoid proper prosecution for
criminal offences which had absol-
utely no political connection".
Ordering the extradition of Sam-
uel Hughes, Lismore, Co- Waterford,
the Judge awarded the Attorney
General the costs of the motion- and
said he would give double costs
against the applicant, if he could.
"I am quite satisfied that there
are no grounds, whatever, that he
will be prosecuted for any offence,
other than the offence charged in
the warrant", the Judge added.
Mr- Justice Butler said the case
being made by the British author-
ities was that Hughes had taken part
in the hijacking of two lorries, con-
taining quantities of tuna fish, an-
oraks and pullovers and that his
share of the venture amounted to
about £8,000.
Not only was he (Judge) not sat-
isfied but he positively disbelieved
and, found as a fact, that at no time
was Hughes suspected by the Eng-
lish authorities of being engaged
in any IRA activities. He found the
only interest the English police had
in him was in connection with activ-
ities concerning receiving stolen
goods-
"I am quite satisfied there are
no grounds, whatever, for believing
that he will be prosecuted for any
offence other than the offence charg-
ed in the warrant.
The State (Hughes) v. Attorney
General. — Butler J. — unreported
— 10th December, 1976.
(Judgment not available).
PRACTICE
Prison Governor ordered to allow
visits by Solicitor.
The President of the High Court,
Mr. Justice Finlay, on 17 December
made an order directing the Gov-
ernor of Portaloise Prison to admit
a Dublin Solicitor, Mr- Patrick
McCartan, to the prison to conduct
an interview or interviews on reason-
able conditions and at reasonable
times with Eddie Gallagher, who is
serving a 20-year-sentence for kid-
napping Dr. Herrema.
The conditions require that Mr-
McCartan, on notification of his
request for such interviews, should
indicate to the Governor the general
nature of the legal business con-
cerned. In the event of Mr. McCar-
tan being unaware of the general
nature of this, the visit would be
allowed on an assurance by him that
the interview had been requested by
the prisoner, and that to Mr-
McCartan's knowledge and belief it
was a
bona fide
request for legal
assistance.
The application for the order
arose from the failure of Mr.
McCartan to get a second interview
with Gallagher in the prison last
month after the prisoner had re-
quested legal aid.
His counsel, Mr. Patrick McEn-
tee, SC, told the Court that on a
Thursday Mr. McCartan received
word from Portlaoise that he was
excluded from visiting on Saturday.
The President said there was a
rule that a member of the legal pro-
fession could interview a prisoner
within the sight but out of the hear-
ing of prison staff. That rule was
meaningless if prison staff were to
be allowed to take from a solicitor
the written instructions he had got
from his client and read them- "You
39