The Gazette 1974

rs penal servitude. The period of bail expired on

July 1972, and no step has been taken since to serve

tae

balance of his sentence. The question submitted is

^hether the whole sentence is remitted. O'Keeffe P. held

taa

t the prisoner should not now be compelled to serve

V further part of his sentence. The warrant under

the prisoner was detained stated that "he was to

p kept in penal servitude for a period of three years

°m this date—9th February 1970". Since that period

s now run out, the warrant is spent. It follows that,

the purposes of this decision, the order admitting the

Reused to bail is now immaterial, and there is no

cessity

to consider whether there was any jurisdiction

grant bail to anyone serving penal servitude. The

Ppeal is dismissed.

„ [The

State (Langan) v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison;

'l Supreme Court, per Henchy J.; unreported; 5

Vil 1974

applicant entitled to compensation for malicious injuries

as a result of destruction of motor vehicle loaded

with explosives by Irish Army.

. The vehicle had been stolen in August 1972 and had

^en driven to Dundalk by two miscreants for the pur-

P°se of being loaded with gelignite, and had been there

nded over to a third person to accomplish that nefa-

'ous purpose. Undoubtedly the loading of the vehicles

[tiffi explosives was an unlawful purpose, and the meet-

g of persons concerned in Dundalk did constitute an

l a w f u l assembly. Once the vehicle was loaded with

^plosives, it is highly improbable that it would have

used in any other way than as a bomb. The vehicle

in fact detected on its way to the North, and was

°Pped and examined by the Irish Army. As a direct

^ s e q u e n ce of its being loaded with gelignite, it was

°Wn up and destroyed. The applicant claims £1,375

amages from the defendant County Council. As the

U n

Wf u l act led to the destruction of the vehicle, the

. PpHcant is entitled to succeed in his claim for malicious

"Buries.

. [McRandal v. Louth Co. Council; O'Higgins J.; un-

V r t e d ; 2 April 1974.]

heme to alter conditions of Reid Professorship

proposed by Board of Trinity College rejected, and

alternative scheme suggested.

The testator, R. Touthill Reid, deceased, had prac-

d law in Bombay, and was wealthy when he died in

®bfuary 1883. His estate was then valued at more

h a

n £25,000. He had made a will in September 1881

amongst other bequests, left his shares in Indian

7 ' l way Companies, in order to found a Professorship

^ Penal Legislation in Trinity College, Dublin, which

not then taught there to be called Reid Professor-

uip.

, This Professor would be bound to deliver at least

^ Public lectures per year, and to publish at his own

^°ense at least 6 of those lectures, failing which a

ancy would be declared. There were also provis-

o s for prizes and the salary was not to exceed £200

per annum, and to be confined to Irish barristers with

a degree in Arts or Law. At first Trinity College only

conferred a Doctorate in Law, which was admitted to

be merely formal. A Professorship of Jurisprudence and

International Law was only established in 1877, but

all professors of law were part-time. The Board de-

cided that the subjects of Criminal Law and Evidence

were to be added to that of Penal Legislation. As re-

sult of an application, the Master of the Rolls varied

the scheme in 1920; the salary of £200 remained un-

changed, but the period of tenure of the Reid Profes-

sorship was fixed at five years. The Professor was still

bound to deliver 12 lectures, but no longer to publish

any at his expense. If the Professor was given addi-

tional duties, he was to be paid from fees from the Col-

lege. There is an undoubted distinction between Penal

Legislation and Criminal Law, but Penal Legislation

was rarely taught. The duties of the post had develop-

ed to such an extent that in 1963 the Reid Professor

delivered no less than 93 lectures in a year, but only

one public lecture on Penal Legislation.

The investments have been managed with excessive

and not commendable parsimony, inasmuch as out

of an income of £1,407 in 1971, only a mere £471 was

spent; out of an income of £1,513 in 1972, only £726

was spent, and in 1973, out an income of £2,022, only

£813 was spent. Gradually the subject of Constitut-

ional Law was added to the duties of the Reid Pro-

fessor.

The Board of Trinity College have now applied for

a new scheme. They suggested that a visiting lecturer

from England or abroad be accorded the title of Reid

Professor, that he be appointed for a period for 3

years, and that he be required to give not less than 6

lectures on Penology, which the College would pub-

lish. In addition the Board appoint a full time lecturer

in Criminal Law, who would not need to be an Irish

barrister. It was contended by the Attorney General

and by the Irish Bar Council that no circumstances

warranted the amendment of the schemes of 1888 and

of 1920, and that it was essential that the teaching

of Criminal Law should be entrusted to a member of

the Irish Bar, as Irish Criminal Law has developed on

independent lines since 1922.

The original purpose, the provision of lectures in

Penal Legislation, cannot be carried out, because, as

members of the Bar do not receive any training in

Penology, they cannot lecture on that subject. There

is no course in Penology in the State, and there is no

person in the State who claims competence in this

highly specialised subject. The fact that a visiting Pro-

fessor would give two lectures a term would hardly

be adequate to cover the whole of Penology. Further-

more modern legal education tends to be much wider

in scope and more thorough than formerly. Nowadays

the tendency for professors and lecturers is to be whole-

time. For these reasons, Kenny J. rejects the proposed

scheme. The Professor should be appointed by the

Board, and not as a result of an examination. A whole-

time Professor of Criminal Law, who would have a

limited right to practise in Dublin would be preferable;

in any event it is essential that he should be an Irish

barrister. The appointee should take a special course

173