186 / 364
Courts dealing with third party procedure are
not limited in their application to a party which
is a third party in the numerical sense but give
the court jurisdiction to grant to a third party
leave to join a fourth party, and, where appro
priate, to direct that the defendant shall pay to
the third party the costs for which the third
party has become liable to the fourth party.
In an action for damages for negligence and
breach of contract, brought by a customer against
a retailer in respect of coal supplied by the re
tailer which was alleged to have been defective
and dangerous, the retailer joined as third party
the firm from whom he had obtained the coal,
and the third party in turn joined as fourth
party the National Coal Board.
Before the hearing of the action, the defendant
agreed to pay a sum for damages to the plaintiff,
together with his costs. The defendant did not
pursue his claim against the third party and
accepted liability for the third party's costs. The
third party claimed in addition to his own costs
the costs for which he had become liable to the
fourth party.
Held that the court had jurisdiction under
Rules of the Court, to order that the defendant
should pay to the third party the costs of the
fourth party; but that in the circumstances of the
case no such order should be made.
(Kelly v
McCurdy (1965) N.I. p. 124).
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE —AGENT
PROVOCATEUR
The appellant, a soldier serving in the Army,
was charged before a district court-martial with
the offence of disclosing information useful to an
enemy. The substance of the case against him
was contained in the evidence of police officers
who had posed as members of a subversive or
ganisation with which the authorities suspected
the appellant to have sympathies, and had elic
ited the information the subject of the charge
by asking the appellant questions concerning the
security of his barracks. The appellant was con
victed, but appealed to the Courts-Martial Ap
peal Court against his conviction, on the ground
that the Court-Martial which heard
the case
ought in its discretion to have rejected the evidence
of the police officers because of the manner in
which it was obtained.
At the opening of the hearing of the appeal
the Crown, on security grounds, sought an order
that the proceedings be heard in camera, the
application being bases on the submission that
the court had inherent jurisdiction to make such
order rather than on any of the provisions of
the Army Act, 1955. The court held that it had
such jurisdiction, and ordered accordingly.
Held, (i) that in criminal proceedings evidence
which has been improperly obtained is not there
by rendered inadmissible; Kuruma v The Queen,
(1955) A.C. 195 applied ;
(ii)
that the court has nevertheless a discre
tionary
jurisdiction
to
reject evidence which,
though admissible, would operate unfairly against
the accused; and this discretion is not spent at
the time when the relevant evidence has been
admitted ;
(iii) that in the present case the court-martial
which tried the appellant was entitled in its dis
cretion to admit the evidence of the police officers,
and in the circumstances it had been right in
doing so. (Regina v Murphy (1965) N.I. 138).
JOINT SEMINAR WEEK-END
General Council of Provincial Solicitors
and
Society of Young Solicitors
The General Council of Provincial Solicitors
has invited the Society of Young Solicitors to
run a Joint Seminar Week-end. At discussions
between the representatives of the two bodies, it
was decided to hold this seminar on Saturday
and Sunday, the 26th and 27th March, 1966, in
the Midlands.
By the kind permission, with the assistance, of
the Midland Bar Association, the week-end will
be held in the Greville Arms Hotel, Mullingar.
The subjects will include the Succession Act,
1965,
the Finance Act,
1965, Companies and
Finance Legislation, Registristration of Title and
the Land Act, 1965. Lecturers will be announced
at a later date, and full details of the week-end
will be given at the same time.
All applications for bookings should be sent to
Mr. T. Shaw, Solicitor of c/o J. A. Sahw & Co.,
Solicitors, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath. Enquiries
regarding the week-end can be made to any of
the following :—
Patrick Noonan, Hon.
Treasurer, General
Council of Provincial Solicitors, Athboy, Co.
Westmeath.
T. Shaw, Hon Secretary, Midland Bar Associ
ation, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath.
Norman T.
J. Spendlove, Hon. Treasurer,
Society of Young Solicitors, 2 Clare St., Dublin 2.
80