The Gazette 1974

makes provision for ten new Rules to the Fourth Sche-

dule, numbered 7 to 16. In many considered English

decisions, it has already been established that the value

must be the value to the owner, from whom the lands

are being taken, and not to the purchaser by whom

they are being taken. In the absence of Irish authorities,

the same English principles must be applied here. As

against the local authorities contention, in many parts

of the country, houses are built without the benefit of

main drainage or water supply; it is not essential for the

development of land that a local authority should be

involved in supplying such services. The Legislature has

failed to state in the Act that the value of the land was

to be confined to its value as used on the date of the

Notice to Treat. The purpose of Rule 13 was to ensure

that a claimant would not attain an enhanced price for

the land, because either (1) the Local Authority might

propose to expend public money in developing the land

in the neighbourhood, or (2) that the Local Authority

might include such land in a scheme of development.

Pringle J. accordingly held on 16 July 1971 that the

arbitrator had applied the correct principles in assessing

the value of the land at £450,000. The Co. Council

appealed to the Supreme Court. The judgment of the

Supreme Court (Budd, FitzGerald and McLoughlin

JJ.) which unanimously dismissed the appeal, was

. delivered by Budd J. on 17 July 1972. The following

facts emerged from the judgment:

(1) On 6 March 1968 the claimants entered into a

contract with Michael Downey for the purchase of the

lands of Deansrath, Clondalkin, Go. Dublin, containing

280 acres for £200,000.

(2) Proceedings for Specific Performance of the Con-

tract resulted in a negotiated settlement awarding an

additional £22,000 to Michael Downey.

(3) As a result of prolonged and desultory negotia-

tions, a Compulsory Purchase Order was made, in

respect of 232 acres of these lands, by the acquiring

authority on 30 August 1968.

(4) The purchase of the lands of Deansrath was

completed on 31 January 1969.

(5) A Notice to Treat was served by the acquiring

authority on the claimants on 16 April 1970.

(6) As drainage and water services were not available

in respect of these lands, and would not be available

for years, the Go. Council would not grant permission

for the erection of dwellings thereon.

(7) In April 1970 these lands were zoned for agri-

cultural purposes in the Go. Dublin Draft Development

Plan.

The question of law previously referred to is then

dealt with, and Section 2 of the 1919 Act, as well as

Section 69 of the 1963 Act, are once more quoted in

full. In the absence of Irish authorities, English deci-

sions on similar lines should

prima facie

be applied to

this case. From these cases, it is clear that the value to

the owner before the date of the taking, and not the

value to the taker, is to be taken into consideration.

The value to the owner is consequently to be the market

value or full price of the lands. Rule 13 is a restriction

of Basic Rule 2 that, in assessing compensation to be

paid in respect of land to be acquired compulsorily, the

value shall be taken as the open market value of the

land. It was therefore quite open to the arbitrator to

take into consideration the potential development value

of the lands by any person other than a local authority.

Rule 13 is not a method of preventing the claimant

from obtaining the market value of his lands, but rather

a method of preventing him from getting mote than th

market value. During the waiting period, before erect-

ing buildings, the owner of the land was entitled to use

the land in a profitable fashion. The appeal is accord-

ingly dismissed.

[In re Dublin Co. Council Compulsory Purchase

Housing Act 1966 No. 1 Order 1968 and in re Deans-

rath Investment Co. Ltd.; Supreme Court; unreported;

17 July 1972.]

Murder appeal allowed, and new trial ordered, after

jury were accidentally given documents after^ com-

pletion of Judge's charge, which might prejudice

the trial.

The accused was on 7 February 1974 convicted ot

the murder of Joseph Spratt on 13 May 1973; Spratt

was found dead in his own room in a derelict house.

The statements of a witness purported to establish that

the accused was present and took part in the fatal

assault on the deceased. At the conclusion of the

Judge's charge the jury were accidentally given some ox

the exhibits referred to at the trial, including two

depositions of witnesses, and the statements above

referred to. The statements were in the hands of the

jury a relatively short time, and the Judg^ then directed

they should be returned to the Registrar. Although h

is unlikely that the jury read these statements, never-

theless the possibility must be considered that they had,

and in that event that their contents did constitute

evidence at the trial. Upon the return of the documents,

the Judge directed the jury to disregard the contents ox

these statements, and further reminded them that the

witness had stated in evidence that the contents of the

statement had been invented by him. There was abun-

dant evidence from which the jury could arrive at the

verdict without reference to the contents of these state-

ments. Nevertheless, the Court will allow this appeal,

and order a retrial because it cannot say that the deter-

mination of the jury on the assessment of that evidence

may not have been affected by the contents of these

statements in a manner prejudicial to a fair trial.

[The People (A.-G.) v Nolan; Court of Criminal

Appeal (Griffin, Murnaghan and Gannon JJ., per Gan-

non J.); unreported; 27 June 1974.]

Murder appeal allowed and new trial ordered when

accused's wife was treated as a hostile witness

without the proper procedure being followed.

The applicant was found guilty of the murder ot

Harold Dawes on 19 July 1972 before Pringle J. in the

Central Criminal Court on 14 December 1972. The

incident took place in a laneway in Limerick because

the accused had become enamoured of Mrs. Dawes-

The question of provocation was raised at the tria'-

It had to be determined whether the death was a result

of a carefully premeditated murder, for which the

weapon had previously been bought in Liverpool, °

whether the circumstances leading up to the death were

largely unforeseen, and that the weapon used was one

found at the moment in circumstances amounting

t 0

provocation. At first Mrs. Dawes, the mistress of the

accused, had stated that the stabbing had been done

with a knife, but at the trial she stated it was done with

a scissors. On

this evidence, the trial Judg

allowed her to be treated as a hostile witness. Mrs-

Dawes was never asked in cross-examination which

246