311 / 364
sional advisers at an earlier stage in the proceed
ings so as not to leave their investigation and
preparation in unskilled hands. The present case
and the experience which he had had in other
cases indicated that delays of this character were
very much too frequent in cases sponsored by
trade unions. He felt, however, that if this matter
was drawn to the attention of the unions and
they realized, that the Courts were fully appreci
ative of the value of the work which they did in
these circumstances on behalf of their members,
they would take steps to put the matter right.
If there were no improvement in the conduct of
the unions in the matter, it might well be that
the Courts would be compelled to deprive a suc
cessful plaintiff of some part of his costs.
It is likely that this case should be of interest
to solicitors who are concerned in personal injury
actions where the plaintiff is a member of a trade
union and proceeds with the support of his union.
(Horsier v Alexander Bruce
(Grays) L.T.D.
(1966)
1
Lloyd's Rep. 30 and I.L.T.R.S.J. (Vol
C)—
Journal,
p. 345).
Fugitive Offender—Irish Warrant
A warrant was issued by a Justice of a District
Court in Ireland for the arrest of the applicant
who was charged with wilfully neglecting his
children contrary to certain statutes. A judicial
authority certified that the warrant was a warrant
of arrest, and that the offence of child neglect
was an indictable offence in Ireland. On pro
duction of the warrant and proof that the person
named therein was believed
to be v/ithin his
area, an English magistrate automatically endor
sed
the warrant
for execution, exercising his
powers under Section
1
(1) of the Backing of
Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965. The
applicant was arrested by the metropolitan police
and brought before the magistrate, who ordered
him to be detained with a view to being returned
to Ireland. The applicant, who was granted bail,
applied for leave to move for a writ of habeas
corpus, contending,
inter alia,
that the order for
his detention was invalid by reason of irregular
ities in the procedure laid down by the Act of
1965, in particular that the requirements of para
graph 3 of the Schedule in regard to safeguards
of the person accused had not been complied
with :—
Held
(1)
that the magistrate was under an
obligation to endorse the warrant once the mat
ters in Section 1
(1) were proved, subject only
to the exceptions specified in subsections (2) and
(3) and, that subsection (4) was not an exception
to that obligation but merely stated that effects of
the endorsement once it was made and that, ac
cordingly, no inquiry into the merits had to be
held as to whether there was a strong and probable
presumption of guilt of the alleged offence.
Reg. v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex
parte Hammond (1965) A.C. 810; applied.
(2) That the words "corresponding with any
offence"
in Section
2
(2)
referred
to
the
in
gredients of the offence and not to its classification
as indictable, summary and indictable, or sum
mary only, so that there was jurisdiction to make
the order notwithstanding that the offence ol
child neglect was indictable only in Ireland where
as in England it was both an indictable and a
summary offence, and
that the procedure ad
opted complied with the provisions laid down in
paragraph 3 of the Schedule; and that therefore,
the order was valid.
(3) That
the Court was
in
a position
to
entertain the application nothwithstanding that
the applicant was on bail, having regard in par
ticular to section 5
(3).
Regina v Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
Ex Parte Arkins (1966) 1 W.L.R., p. 1593).
CORRESPONDENCE
LAND
ACT 1965 S.12
Commissioner John Kelly.
Irish Land Commission,
Upper Merrion Street,
Dublin 2.
Dear Commissioner Kelly,
I have been directed by the Council to make further
representations against the recent practice of the Land
Commission of attaching a condition of obtaining plan
ning permission when giving consent to subdivision under
Section 12 of the Land Act 1965. It is provided by sub
section (2) of the Section that the power of the Land
Commission to withhold their consent shall be exercised
solely to prevent the creation or continuance of holding
which in the opinion of the Land Commission are not
economic holdings. While sub-section (1) of Section 12
does authorise the Land Commission to attach condi
tions
to
their consent
it
is
submitted
that any such
condition must be relevant to the exercise by the Land
Commission of their power under sub-section
(2). It
is no
function of
the Land Commission
to concern
themselves with, or enquire regarding the question of
planning permission. It seems to the Council that thi:
power of the Land Commission to withhold their consent
should be exercised solely
to prevent the creation or
continuance of uneconomic holdings and is strictly limited
to such cases.
Apart from the above legal arguments which we think
are perfectly valid ones it seems to us that the enormous
practical difficulties would exist
if Land Commission
consents are to be conditional on planning permission
being obtained. The preparation of plans, etc., to sup
port an application for planning permission might take
some considerable time. A further period must necessarily
elapse while the appropriati; local authority is consider
ing the application and if the application is refused by
95