77 / 364
Secretary and Treasurer:
Michael P. Houlihan,
Bindon St., Ennis;
Committee :
Bryan McMahon,
Ennis; Daniel O. Healy, Scariff;
Thomas A.
Lynch, Ennis ; T. F. O'Reilly, Ennis ; Michael J.
McMahon, Kilrush.
BOOK REVIEWS
The Law Officers of the Crown
by J. Lloyd Edwards,
London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1964,
jo/-.
We are already indebted to Dr. Lloyd Edwards,
former Lecturer in Law in Queen's University,
Belfast, now Director of the Centre of Enminology
in Toronto, for many learned articles in the Criminal
Law Review, and for a major work on " Mens Rea
in Statutory Offences" (1955).
In presenting his
learned work on " The Law Officers of the Crown ",
which he modestly calls " A study of the offices of the
Attorney General and Solicitor-General of England,
with an account of the office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions of England ", Dr. Edward's
considerable reputation as an eminent legal academic
writer has been substantially enhanced. Not only
has he written a most readable and fascinating
book—he tells us for instance that Sir Patrick
Hastings considered his short tenure as Attorney-
General as his idea of hell—but he has managed to
weave his difficult material
into a continuous
narrative supplemented by interesting foot notes.
Some of the chapter headings—The hybrid character
of the Law Officers—The organisation and Functions
of this Department—Membership of the Cabinet—
The Independence of the Attorney-General—The
Attorney-General's Fiat—Claims
to
judicial pre
ferment will doubtless encourage members to read
this absorbing volume. It is to be hoped that Dr.
Edward's proposed study of the position of the
Attorney-General in Ireland and of
the Lord
Advocate in Scotland will be published soon.
CASES
OF THE MONTH
Multiple Occupation
The Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench
Division (The Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Ashworth and Mr. Justice Brabin).
In a reserved judgment, dismissed the appeal by
way of case stated by the prosecutor, Baling Borough
Council, against the decision of the Middlesex
Justices, sitting at Baling, on May I3th, 1964
dismissing the prosecutors' informations that the
defendants, in contravention of an Enforcement
Notice under the Town and Country Planning Act,
1947, Section 23, had used and permitted to use
20 Courtfield Gardens, Baling, W.I3, as two or more
separate dwellings. Delivering the judgment of the
Court Mr. Justice Ashworth stated that the justices
also found that the defendants looked after a Mrs.
Betts, cooked all her meals and allowed her to live in.
There was nothing in the case stated to show what
arrangements were made regarding toilet facilities.
In fact the crucial question before the justices was
whether the property was being used as two or more
separate dwellinghouses.
Counsel for the pro
secutor submitted that the issue was—were the
people living separately or are they living together ?
He went on to submit that if the people were found
to be living separately, the dwellings must be
separate. His Lordship said that in his judgment a
house might well be occupied by two or more
persons, who are living separately, without that
house being thereby used as separate dwellings. In
other words, persons might live separately under
one roof without occupying separate dwellings.
The important words in subsection (3) of Section
12 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962
were " separate dwellinghouses ".
Multiple oc
cupation, as it is sometimes called, was not enough
by itself, and to bring the subsection into play the
dwellinghouses formed out of the building pre
viously used as a single dwellinghouse must in truth
be separate.
The question was one of fact and
degree. The existence or absence of any form of
physical reconstruction was a
relevant
factor;
another was the extent to which the alleged separate
dwellings could be regarded as separate in the sense
of being self-contained and independent of other
parts of the same property.
(Baling Borough Council
v.
Ryan and Another—
(1965) i All. R. 137.)
Crown Privilege
Court of Appeal (Denning M. R. Harman and
Salmon L. J.J.) dismissed an interlocutory appeal by
five local authorities in the Black Country. From the
decision of Mr. Justice Winn in chambers on July
9th, 1964, affirming Master Jacob, and upholding a
claim to Crown privilege made by the Minister of
Housing and Local Government,
to withhold
certain documents relevant to a pending action by
the local authorities against the Ministry, on the
ground stated in the Minister's affidavit that " each
such document belongs to a class which it is necessary
for the proper functioning of the public service to
withhold from production." Referring to the Local
Government Commission set up by the Parliament
in 1958 and a local inquiry held under Section 23 (2)
of the Local Government Act, 1958, the question
arose in the action before their Lordships as to
whether the local inquiry was valid or not. The
Local Authority said it was invalid for two main
reasons :—(i) failure of the inspectors to make
recommendations to the Minister;
and (2) the