The Gazette 1977

G A Z L T N - :

JANUARY/F IZ BRUARY 1977

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. - Spec i al Cr iminal Court — unreported — 27 January, 1977. People (D.P.P.) v. Stenson

were to be remedied by new sub- contractors, Messrs. Mclnerney, under the supervision of the architects 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 w hile 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 w as 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 w hich 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 Pn ces. 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 Me a nwh i le

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.

< L I B RARY £