In the Irish Courts
| Published date | 01 October 1961 |
| Date | 01 October 1961 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201836102500409 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts
COURT
OF
APPEAL
IN
NORTHERN
IRELAND
INTERPRETATION
OF A
PENAL
ORDER
Minister
of
Agriculture v. Ulster Transport Authority
IT is provided by Art.7(I) of the Imported Livestock
Order, 1959 (made
under
s. 6of the Agriculture Act, 1957)
that
if any livestock is "imported, removed or brought
into"
the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland in contra-
vention of the provisions of the Order, such livestock may be
forfeited
"and
any vehicle or container used for the carriage,
handling or concealment of such livestock shall be similarly
liable".
In
the
instant case (1960,
N.!.
163), alorry belonging
to the public transport authority was stopped by a police
sergeant acting as an authorised officer within the meaning of
the Order.
It
was carrying
ten
head of cattle, but, as two had
no
punch
marks in
the
ears, the driver was told to proceed to
Belfast (which he did) and there
the
police seized both cattle
and
lorry, on the ground
that
they suspected
that
the
cattle
had been illegally imported and
that
the lorry was used for the
carriage of livestock imported in contravention of
the
Order.
There
was no appeal against
the
forfeiture of the cattle (so
that
the
Courts assumed
that
they had in fact been illegally im-
ported),
but
the
Transport
Authority resisted forfeiture of
the
lorry.
When
the case eventually came before the Court
of Appeal,
Lord
MacDermott C.}. proceeded
upon
the
further
assumption that, as there was nothing to suggest
that
when
the
lorry was stopped it was still on
the
journey which had
brought the cattle into
Northern
Ireland,
"they
were, at the
time, being moved from one place in
Northern
Ireland to
another." Since the defendants were not privy to,
and
had no
knowledge of,
the
illegal importation, their lorry was seized
"simply because it had, in fact, been used for the carriage of
livestock which had previously been imported contrary to the
Order".
Upon
the basis of these assumptions, two questions
of interpretation arose.
297
To continue reading
Request your trial