The Gazette 1964/67

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

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