In the Irish Courts Supreme Court in Eire
| Date | 01 April 1978 |
| Published date | 01 April 1978 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837804200205 |
| Subject Matter | In the Irish Courts |
IN
THE
IRISH
COURTS
SUPREME
COURT
IN
EIRE
NEED FOR
PROOF
OF AUTHENTICITY OF WARRANT
IN EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
Gillespie v. A. G.
The upshot of the decision
of
the Supreme Court of Eire in
Gillespie v. A. G. (1976, I. R. 233) is that, notwithstanding s.55(I)
of the Extradition Act 1955, it may be necessary for a person seeking
the extradition of an alleged offender from Eire to establish the
authority of the warrant upon which the claim is based. That sub-
section provides that, "unless the court sees good reason to the
contrary", adocument-appearing to be a warrant issued by a judicial
authority may be admitted in evidence, if the signature upon it is
verified. In Gillespie's case, the plaintiff claimed in the High Court
that the order which the Justice had made for his extradition to
England on a charge of perjury was bad. The warrant on which the
claim for extradition was made was issued for the arrest of the present
plaintiff by a Justice of the Peace of the County of Chester, on the
basis of a charge that he had committed perjury in the Manchester
Crown Court ("said to have been held in the County of Lancaster").
The plaintiff claimed his release under s.50
of
the Act and a declaration
that the Justice's order was invalidly made. For this purpose, he sought
to adduce the evidence of an expert in English law to the effect that
a Justice
of
the Peace for the County of Chester had no jurisdiction
to issue a warrant for the arrest of a man resident in the Republic of
Ireland in respect of an offence committed in the County
of
Lancaster.
In the High Court, the judge ruled that no such evidence was admissible
and so he dismissed the plaintiffs application.
In the Supreme Court, it was accepted that in the proceedings before
the Justice the warrant was correctly admitted in evidence, as the
signature had been verified and the Justice had no "good reason to the
contrary". The court held, however, that once fresh proceedings were
begun in the High Court s.55 had to be applied over again. On that
occasion, the question arose whether there was good reason which
would prevent the warrant from being accepted. The plaintiffs claim
was now that the order for his extradition was bad because the
warrant on which it was based was bad. In the opinion of the Supreme
Court, counsel who seeks to show that there is "good reason to the
103
To continue reading
Request your trial