The Gazette 1974

and the order forfeiting his fishing gear.

The skipper, Emil Coyan, was convicted by District

Justice O'Donovan in Cork City Court on 3 November

1972. He had ordered the detention of the trawler

Pending the payment of the fine, but on the payment

°f £11,000 bail, the boat was released.

In February of this year the High Court granted a

conditional order against the District Justice to show

cause why the conviction should not be quashed.

Mr. Justice Gannon, in a reserved judgment, made

absolute the conditional order and quashed the order of

the District Justice.

It had been submitted on behalf of the French skipper

that the conviction or order of the District Court was

had on its face in that it purported to convict him of

an offence unknown to the law and that the consequent

°rder of forfeiture of fish and gear was also bad.

The judge held that having illegally entered the

territorial waters of the State, there was no offence

ynder Section 221 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act,

1959, as amended, of unlawful fishing.

The section did, however, make unlawful entry to

territorial waters an offence and the foreign trawler had

so been fined £100 for illegal entry.

„ [State (Coyan) v. Attorney General; Gannon J.;

January 1974.]

Father of 8-year-old loses action—Boy singer controlled

by Act.

In a reserved judgment delivered in the High Court,

blin, Mr. Justice Finlay refused to make a declaration

that certain sections of the Prevention of Cruelty to

Children Act, 1904, were unconstitutional.

. A Co. Kildare Army sergeant who claimed that his

ght -year-old son had been prevented by the provisions

the Act from pursuing his career as a professional

^nger and musician, lost his action, but Mr. Justice

hinlay held that the decision to test the constitution-

hty of the sections had been responsibly taken and he

^ a d e no order as to costs.

The action had been taken by Thomas Landers, of

J^lcullen, Co. Kildare, against the Attorney-General,

^ f g e a n t Landers claimed a declaration from the court

"tat sub-section (b) and (c) of section 2 of the Act

^ r e inconsistent with the Constitution; that they were

° t carried forward by Article 50 of the Constitution

a n

d they were no longer part of the law of the State.

Sergeant Landers pleaded that Michael Landers, the

V°ungest of his six children, had a singing voice of un-

usually pleasing quality and a great talent for learning,

Understanding and singing songs, and a great capacity

entertaining young and old.

both Sergeant Landers and his wife considered offers

a n

d opportunities for their son having regard to his

atural requirements; his physical, mental, emotional,

^oral and educational development; the great enjoy-

ment which performing in public brought to him; his

natural talents for entertaining, and they also considered

ne advantages likely to accrue to Michael if money,

otherwise unobtainable, could be put by for his later

dvancement in life.

Conditions of Contract examined

In the end both they and their children decided that

Michael should accept engagements for singing so long

a s

the terms and conditions, including conditions as to

Payment, were suitable.

The Attorney-General pleaded that a judgment or

decision regarding Michael's activities as a singer or

entertainer or otherwise were not matters within the

religious and moral, intellectual, physical or social edu-

cation of Michael.

At the trial of the action earlier this month, it had

been stated that in the nine months of his career the

boy had become widely known as a singer and that

£800 had been put into the bank for him. Prosecutions

had been instituted, however, in respect of public per-

formances by the boy and his career had had to be

abandoned.

In the course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Finlay

said that the boy still had the right to perform in

many different types of place and in many different

circumstances provided they did not include the places

specified, in the Act, between the hours of 9 p.m. and

6 a.m. He could prepare for a career which could

commence as a professional singer with relatively minor

restrictions when he reached the age of 10 and with

minimal restrictions when he reached 11.

[Landers v. Attorney General; unreported; Finlay J .;

21 January 1974.]

Court may not interfere with Government in its execu-

tive functions—Sunningdale Conference.

The circumstances in which the courts may or may

not interfere with the Government, in the exercise of its

executive functions, were discussed by the Supreme

Court in Dublin, when the court gave its reasons for

dismissing the appeal brought by Kevin Boland, the

leader of Aontacht Eireann.

Mr. Boland, an engineer and farmer, of Red Gap,

Rathcoole, Co. Dublin, had appealed against a decision

of the High Court dismissing his action in which he

had sought that a declaration that any agreement

signed by the Government in the terms set out in the

Sunningdale communique would be repugnant to the

Constitution.

Murnaghan J. had made an order for costs" against

Mr. Boland and the Supreme Court ordered that the

costs of the appeal also be awarded against him.

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court last

week and the court dismissed the appeal when the argu-

ment had finished. The Chief Justice said that the

reasons for the court's decision would be given later

and these were announced yesterday.

Functions of Dail

In the course of his judgment, the Chief Justice (Mr.

Justice Fitzgerald) said that in the High Court Mr.

Justice Murnaghan had decided that Paragraph 5 of

the agreed communique did not acknowledge that

Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom;

that the clause was no more than a statement of policy,

and that the court should not purport to usurp the

functions of Dail Eireann in seeking to control the

Government in the exercise of its functions.

It appeared to him (the Chief Justice) that the

following matters had to be determined by the Co u r t:

(1) the meaning and effect of clauses 5, 6 and 20 of the

agreed communiqué, and (2) the jurisdiction of the

High Court or the Supreme Court, in the existing cir-

cumstances, to intervene or seek to control the exercise

of the Executive of its functions.

The Chief Justice said that the authorities cited by

Mr. Seamus Sorohan, S.C. (for Mr. Boland), in so far