|
Extradition
also a problem in 1880s
In November 1875, the Castletown Magistrates wrote to Dublin
Castle seeking advice on a case which had come before them
at the local Petty Sessions.
The following is the reply they received: Dublin Castle,
24th November, 1875. Gentlemen, I am directed by the Lord
Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the 19th instant and in reply to inform you that the Law
Adviser cannot be called upon to give an opinion on an abstract
case. I am therefore to request that you will, when requiring
legal advice, be good enough to send the particulars of
any case that may come before you, stating names etc., and
then your communications will be submitted to the law Adviser
for his opinion. I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
T.H. Burke.
In reply to this letter, the Clerk of the Castletown Petty
Sessions wrote: Castletown Petty Sessions, 29th November,
1875. Sir, Referring to your communication of 24th November.
The case the Magistrates desire to be instructed on is that
of Cornelius Sullivan, who was summoned to appear at Petty
Sessions on 1st October, 1875, for a nuisance dangerous
to people. He appeared, was convicted and an entry made
in the Order Book. The nuisance to be removed, he had to
pay two shillings and six pence costs. He paid the costs
but did not abate the nuisance: (1) Can the Magistrates
now issue the Order under their hand and seal, required
by the 18& 29 Vic c121-Sec. 12. (2) Had the Magistrates
the power under any of the Statuary Acts to have imposed
a fine at the hearing of the case and previous to the issue
of the Order above refereed to? (3) If the Magistrates have
now the power after the lapse of two months to issue this
order and should it have a Petty Sessions Stamp. Unfortunately
we couldn’t find out what was the outcome.
In another letter to the Clerk of Castletown Petty Sessions
about the appointment of an Inspector of Explosives in Castletown,
dated 4th March, 1881: Gentlemen, Having learned from the
Clerk of Petty Sessions that you are about to appoint an
Inspector of Explosives, and also that there is not at Castletown
Petty Sessions amongst the Circulars addressed to magistrates
a copy of the enclosed circular, I beg a direction of His
Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to draw your attention to
provision therein made by the Home Office for the discharge
of duties of office in question.”
Looking at these old letters, it seems that way back over
a hundred years ago, extradition was as much a problem as
it is today? These problems were set out in a hand written
letter from Dublin Castle to the Magistrates at Castletown.
Date 22nd February, 1886. Gentlemen, I am directed by the
Lord Lieutenant to inform you that His Excellency feels
it necessary to call your attention to the great importance
of care and accuracy in preparing the Information and Warrant
on which it is proposed to found an application to the Government
of a Foreign Country or of a Colony for the surrender of
a fugitive from justice.
Cases have recently occurred in which, after a fugitive
criminal has been apprehended in a foreign country, it has
been found that the documents furnished in support of the
demand for his extradition were incorrect in form or that
the evidence was defective in material points and the accused
person has been released before steps could be taken to
remedy the mistake.
With a view to avoiding such miscarriages of justice it
is desirable that the utmost care should be taken that the
warrant be properly drawn and signed and that the evidence
to be submitted to the Foreign or Colonial Court be sufficient
to establish against the accused such a Prima Facie case
as would in this country justify a Committal for Trial;
also that if copies of the information are sent instead
of the originals, such copies should be duly authenticated
and certified.
It sometimes happens that the flight of an accused person
is not discovered until after the warrant has been issued
or an information may be hastily prepared with a view to
secure immediate apprehension. His Excellency would therefore
recommend that on it being ascertained that the accused
person has fled to a country with which Great Britain has
a Treaty of Extradition or to a Colony, it should be carefully
considered whether it is not advisable that a fresh warrant
should be set forth in the terms of the treaty. I am, Gentlemen,
your obedient servant, R.J. C. Hamilton.
Courtesy of the Southern Star
November 2005
|
