R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner.ex parte Hammond
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest,Lord Hodson,Lord Pearce,Lord Donovan |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 1964 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1964] UKHL J0604-2 |
| Date | 04 June 1964 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1964] UKHL J0604-2
House of Lords
Lord Reid
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Lord Hodson
Lord Pearce
Lord Donovan
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis against Hammond (on Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division), that the Committee had heard Counsel as well on Tuesday the 21st as on Wednesday the 22d days of April last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, of New Scotland Yard in the County of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, of the 18th of February 1964, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; and Counsel having been heard on behalf of Peter David Hammond, the Respondent in the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled. That the said Order of a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, of the 18th day of February 1964, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellant do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondent the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
In this case a warrant to arrest the Respondent was granted on 23rd December, 1963, by the District Judge at Howth in County Dublin. That warrant was forwarded to the Appellant with two endorsements. The first was a certificate by a Superintendent of the Garda Siochana that he had reason to believe that the Respondent was to be found at 1, Fernhead Road, London, W.9, and that he believed the signature of the District Judge to be genuine. The second was signed by a Deputy Commissioner of the Garda Siochana and stated "I hereby endorse the within warrant for execution in the London Metropolitan Police District London England". The warrant so endorsed was presented to a magistrate in the Marylebone Magistrates Court on 7th February, 1964, and he thereupon authorised the arrest of the Respondent. The Respondent was arrested the same day and he would forthwith have been taken in custody to the Republic of Ireland but for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus at the instance of his solicitors. On 18th February a Divisional Court by a majority (Finnemore and Paull, JJ. Widgery J. dissenting) ordered that the Respondent be forthwith discharged.
An application by the Appellant for leave to appeal was granted by this House. Assurances have been given by the authorities in the Republic of Ireland that in the event of this appeal succeeding no further warrant in this matter would be forwarded for execution here, so the Respondent has no substantial personal interest. But the appeal raises a very important general question. It appears that the procedure followed in this case has been regularly followed for many years and we were informed that under it on the average nearly a hundred persons per annum have been sent in custody from this country to the Republic of Ireland.
The question for your Lordships' decision does not depend on the facts of this case, but they give a useful illustration of the problem. We have an affidavit of the Respondent sworn the day after he was arrested, and we have the terms of the warrant. The warrant states that a complaint had been made on oath that the Respondent, having the custody of two children, did at an address in County Dublin "wilfully neglect said children in such a manner likely to cause them unnecessary suffering or injury to their health". The facts as stated by the Respondent are that he was married in this country in 1955, that he works in London, that his wife left him at the end of 1959 and returned to her parents in Ireland, and that he admits paternity of one of the children but disputes paternity of the other, and intends to bring divorce proceedings. He says that he was last in Ireland in March, 1960, when he tried to effect a reconciliation, that he has sent money on various occasions since that time, that he has written to his wife but received no reply, that he has never received from her any letters, complaints or requests for money and that he was unaware of any proceedings in any court.
We do not know that this story is true and probably the facts put before the District Judge at Howth were different. But the Appellant argues that, even if the Respondent's story is accurate in every detail, the law allowed him no opportunity of putting his case to anyone in this country and no opportunity of applying for bail: the magistrate in this country has no right to make any enquiry or to grant bail but must back any warrant sent from the Republic of Ireland by an appropriate officer of the Garda Siochana, at least unless it is plainly bad on its face; and the police must forthwith arrest any person named in the warrant and send him in custody to the Republic of Ireland. Plainly it is of the utmost importance that there should be an authoritative decision whether this really is the law because cases of great hardship can easily arise if it is. I wish to make it quite clear that I do not doubt for a moment that justice would be done in the Courts of the Republic if the accused is able to bring his witnesses from England and pay for his defence. I do not know whether legal aid is available in the Republic. But it is a serious matter if, in a case of this kind, a person can be sent under arrest out of Her Majesty's dominions without any warning or any opportunity of preparing or stating his defence or of applying for bail or of representing the hardship which that will involve for him.
Normally persons resident in this country who are accused of an offence in a foreign country are dealt with under the Extradition Act 1870, which contains elaborate safeguards. And if they are accused of an offence in another part of Her Majesty's dominions they are dealt with under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 which contains very considerable safeguards. Even under the modified scheme for contiguous groups of British possessions under Part II of the 1881 Act the accused must be brought before a magistrate in the place where he is arrested and section 19 allows the court to take into account the trivial nature of the case or whether it would be unjust or oppressive to put the warrant into operation immediately or at all. I realise that the Republic of Ireland has always been treated as a special case and it is quite clear that neither the Extradition Act nor the Fugitive Offenders Act can be applied as they stand to cases like the present. So it would seem that if your Lordships agree that the present appeal must be dismissed it will be necessary to give urgent consideration to the whole matter of sending accused persons from this country to the Republic of Ireland, and in particular to the case of British subjects who have never resided in that part of Ireland or caused anything to be done there.
I have had an opportunity of reading the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and I agree that this appeal must be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
My Lords,
The system under which a warrant to arrest issued by a justice in one jurisdiction could be backed by a justice in another jurisdiction within which an alleged offender was said to be, has doubtless been necessary in the interests of justice. It has therefore been a desirable system. In earlier times a warrant issued by a justice of the peace in England could only be executed within the area of his local jurisdiction. If, however, after a county justice in one county in England had issued a warrant to arrest an alleged offender such person had been able with impunity to avoid arrest by going to or being in another county, the law would have been mocked and frustrated. Various legislative enactments were therefore introduced which provided for the indorsement of warrants so that they could be acted upon within the area of and by virtue of the authority of the indorsing justice. It is not necessary for present purposes to trace the history of these enactments nor the steps by which the system became applicable not only as between and in reference to places in England and Wales but also as between England and Wales and Scotland, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Prior to 1848 there were such statutes as 23 Geo. II c. 26, 24 Geo. II c. 55, 13 Geo. III c. 31, 44 Geo. III c. 92, 45 Geo. III c. 92 and 54 Geo. III c. 186. In 1848 the Indictable Offences Act was passed (11 & 12 Vict. c. 42). It was an Act to facilitate the Performance of the Duties of Justices of the Peace out of Sessions within England and Wales with respect to Persons charged with indictable offences. It was primarily an English Act and nothing in the Act was to be deemed or taken to extend to Scotland or Ireland or to the Isles of Man, Jersey or Guernsey save and except the provisions in respect of the backing of warrants (see section 32). Those provisions were contained in sections 12, 13, 14 and 15.
Three years later (in 1851) the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act was passed (14 & 15 Vict. c. 93). That was primarily an Irish Act....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Son Kaewsa and Others v Superintendent of Changi Prison and Another
...remand orders even though they complied with s 11(2). He relied on the authority of Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Hammond. [1965] AC 810 In that case, the House of Lords held, in a case concerning the mutual backing of warrants, that the arrest of the respondent could not be ordered in......
- Ward v James
- Watts v Manning
-
Minister for Justice and Equality v O'Connor
...of the Act of 2003 to third countries; (5) By analogy with the decision of R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex Parte Hammond [1965] AC 810 where the pre-1922 rendition arrangements between Ireland and England were held not to have survived independence and the disbandment of the Roya......
-
Extradition Between the UK and Ireland After Brexit—Understanding the Past and Present to Prepare for the Future
...considering his rights is thenegation of law and a denial of justice’.23. In R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex p Hammond [1965] AC 810 the House of Lords held that the requirementthat a warrant from Erie be endorsed by the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary bef......