In the Irish Courts
| Date | 01 July 1962 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836202600307 |
| Published date | 01 July 1962 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts
COURT
OF
APPEAL
IN
NORTHERN
IRELAND
BURDEN OF PROOF
ON
DEFENDANT
Minister
of
Agriculture for N.J. v. McGeough
THIS case (1961, N.J. 65) raised once again the question of
the
powers of
the
Government to prevent smuggling. By
s. 6of
the
Agriculture Act, 1957,
the
specified Ministers may
make provision in respect of
the
importation of livestock into
the
United
Kingdom. Such provision may regulate the times
and
places of import and, by sub-section (3), it
"may
contain
such provisions as may appear to the Ministers to be necessary
for
the
due
operation and enforcement of the
Order",
including
the
seizure
and
sale of livestock and
the
forfeiture of
the
livestock or proceeds of sale. Should anyone claim to be
the
owner of livestock
thus
seized and allege
that
their importation
was not in contravention of
the
Order,
then
forfeiture shall
be only by order of the Court. Purporting to exercise these
powers conferred on him by s. 6, the Minister made
the
Imported
Livestock Order, 1958, Article 10 of which provided
that
when notice of claim in respect of livestock is duly received
the
Minister (unless he admits
the
claim) shall take proceed-
ings for their condemnation by a court and "unless the claimant
satisfies
the
court
that
the
livestock . . . was at the time of
the
seizure his property
...
and
that
it was not imported [etc.] in
contravention of
the
Order
...
the
Court shall make an
Order
condemning as forfeited
the
livestock
....
"
In
McGeough's
case (supra), fifteen bullocks were seized on suspicion of their
having been illegally imported (and the County
Court
Judge
found
that
they had been so imported).
The
defendant
claimed
them
and
the
Minister thereupon brought proceedings
at Petty Sessions, when the Resident Magistrate made a
condemnation order, from which
the
defendant appealed.
In
the
Court
of Appeal,
the
point taken by
the
appellant
was
that
Article 10 of the
Order
(which places on a defendant
the
onus of proving
that
there has been no illegal importation)
was
not
within
the
legislative powers of
the
Minister as con-
212
To continue reading
Request your trial