The Gazette 1977

19 / 264

G A Z L T N - : JANUARY/FIZBRUARY 1977
were to be remedied by new sub-
contractors, Messrs. Mclnerney,
under the supervision of the
architects
Me a nwh i le a l t e r n a t i ve
accommodation would be provided
a t defendant's expense where
necessary. The plaintiff and his
family moved to the Four Courts
Hotel from 7 March to 2 May, 1972
while these repairs to his house were
being undertaken. When they
returned, the plaintiff and other
Purchasers were not satisfied with the
repairs effected. On 17th July, 1972,
the defendants were notified that it
was intended to institute proceedings,
®nd that a new team of architects had
been retained, who furnished a report
® September. In December, 1972,
Messrs. Crampton were employed by
the defendants to execute further
repairs, as a result of the plaintiffs
complaints. The plaintiff who was a
director of an engineering company,
111 January, 1973, listed 33 items
which required attention. In April
May, 1973, Messrs. Crampton
C£rricd out remedial works on the
Plaintiffs house. The plaintiff then
employed a quantity surveyor, who
submitted a detailed priced bill of
quantities in November, 1973, for
remedial works.
The plenary summons and
statement of claim were both issued
m June, 1974. A defence which
contained notice of lodgment of
uioney in Court was delivered in
January, 1975. The evidence
established that there was on the part
the plaintiff a progressive increase
ln the number of defects complained
As the measure of damages in
November, 1973, is the amount it
^ould actually cost the employer to
5°niplete the work as it was originally
attended, any further delay in
carrying out the remedial works must
b e attributed to the plaintiffs
uccision, in a period of rising costs, to
«low the defects to remain in
existence until this litigation is
j^ticluded. The cost of central
bating equipment wili be allowed,
a n d will be measured at present day
Pnces. The original 33 items as well
as some of the supplementary items
Jere then investigated one by one.
ne plaintiff was unable to prove ihat
e was entitled to damages becausc
insufficient number of wall tiles
J|ad been provided. £200 damages
«I be awarded for inconvenience.
4
The total damages awarded will be
£1,162.10.
Johnston v. Longleat Properties
Ltd.—McMahon J.—unreported-19
May, 1976.
Accused cleared of all charges in
Garda murder trial.
Ronan Damian Stenson was on
27 January, found not guilty of
charges of murder, manslaughter,
armed robbery and firearms
possession and released by the
Spccial Criminal Court in Dublin.
Stenson (26), of Marino,
Dublin, had been accused of the
murder of Garda Reynolds, at St
Anne's Park, Raheny, Dublin, on
September 11th, 1975, and the
robbery of the Bank of Ireland,
Killester, on the same date, as well
as the manslaughter of Garda
Reynolds and the possession of
firearms. He had pleaded not
guilty to all charges.
When the case opened the
Prosecuting Counsel, Mr. Noel K.
McDonald, S.C., sought a ruling
f r om t he C o u r t on t h e
admissibility of a statement made
by the accused in light of the
Bartholomew Madden case in the
Court of Criminal Appeal.
Asked, by Mr. Justice Hamilton
why the State was not then
entering a nolle prosequi, Mr.
McDonald said he had specific
instructions from the Director of
Public Prosecutions to ask the
Court for a ruling. The Court then
rose to consider its ruling.
When the Court resumed after
lunch, Mr. Justice Hamilton
recalled the evidence of Stenson's
arrest at 10.35 a.m. at his home
on October 8th, 1975, under
Section 15 of the Firearms Act.
He was taken to Rathmines
Garda Station and was questioned
by Detectives Culhane and
O'Malley and at 12.45 was put in
a cell in the Garda Station.
At 1.55 p.m. that same day he
was taken to a room in the ground
floor of the Garda Station and
there he stayed with Detective
O'Malley. At 2.40 p.m. he was
brought upstairs to another room,
and was questioned by Detective
Sergeant Keanc and O'Malley. At
3.30 p.m. he was questioned by
Detcctives Finn, Keane and
O'Malley.
Mr. Justice Hamilton said that
at 4.10 p.m. Stenson made a
statement which subsequently was
transcribed into writing between 6
p.m. and 7.50 p.m. He later signed
the statement.
The D i r e c t or of Pub l ic
Prosecutions was seeking to have
this s t a t ement admi t t ed as
evidence, but in light of the
Bartholomew Madden case in the
Court of Criminal Appeal, the
Court could not admit it, Mr.
Justice Hamilton said.
In this case, he said, Stenson
had not been brought before a
Peace Commissioner, the District
Court or the Special Criminal
Court "as soon as convenient."
He said Stenson could have
been brought before any of these
before 4 p.m. on that day. He said
in cases like these, it was not up to
the police but the Courts to decide
how long a person should be
detained. In this case the State had
admitted the defendant was
unlawfully detained and the Court
was satisfied that the statement
h a d b e e n t a k e n u n d e r
circumstances involving a breach
of the defendant's Constitutional
rights.
Mr. Justice Hamilton said the
Court found Stenson not guilty of
the charges against him in the
indictment. Stenson then left the
dock.
People (D.P.P.) v. Stenson -
Spec i al Cr iminal Court —
unreported — 27 January, 1977.
< L I B RARY £