The Police and Contempt of Court
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836502900209 |
| Published date | 01 April 1965 |
| Date | 01 April 1965 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Police and
Contempt of Court
THE legislation proposed by the English and Irish govern-
ments to their respective Parliaments on the question of
the return to and from Ireland of 'wanted men' is long over-
due. As the present law has recently led to four police officers
-two
Irish and two
English-being
declared to be in con-
tempt of court by
the
Supreme Court in Eire the proposed
changes will be welcomed by all, save, perhaps, by those
'on
the run' in either country.
In
England, the difficulties of the police were demon-
strated in the decision of the House of Lords in June, 1964, in
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner v. Hammond, where it
was held that an Irish warrant for Hammond's arrest backed
by a London magistrate was invalid. By the Petty Sessions
(Ireland) Act, 1851, it was provided that such awarrant
should be endorsed by an officer of the Royal Irish Con-
stabulary;
but
the adaptation order made in 1923 (under the
Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922) did
not make any specific adaptation of the Act, to allow the
newly formed Civic Guard to be substituted for the disbanded
Royal Irish Constabulary.
In
Ireland, the police have encoun-
tered similar difficulty, in that the Irish Supreme Court
decided (in Quinn's case) that the arrest and return to England
of anyone, on the strength of a United Kingdom warrant,
'backed' in Eire, was unconstitutional.
The
British Home
Secretary told the House of Commons in July 1964 that he
had amended by Order in Council the law relating to the
particular point arising in Hammond's case (supra);
but
the
effect of Quinn's case (supra) is that alleged offenders cannot be
returned from Eire to answer charges in the English courts.
By the proposed English legislation (the Backing of
145
To continue reading
Request your trial