A High Court judge yesterday declared invalid a summons issued against a man charged with road traffic offences, after he held the summons was issued by a woman who was not a properly appointed District Court clerk. In a ruling expected to have far-reaching implications, Mr Justice McCracken said the Minister for Justice should personally make the decisions in relation to the appointment of District Court clerks.
He was delivering judgment on a case taken by a man summoned to appear at a sitting of the District Court in Ballina, Co Mayo, last December. The summons was issued from the District Court office in Ballina on November 29th, 1996, and signed by Ms Ann Cawley who was stated to be the "appropriate District Court clerk".
The judge said it appeared that Ms Cawley had not been appointed District Court clerk at the time she signed the summons, and this was recognised by the office in Ballina and steps were taken to regularise the position. A new summons was issued on December 16th, 1996, again signed by Ms Cawley as the "appropriate District Court clerk".
He said the man against whom the summons was issued challenged the validity of both. The first summons was struck out and Judge Daniel Shields said the validity of the second summons was to be determined by the High Court.
Ruling on the matter, Mr Justice McCracken said Ms Cawley was not a District Court clerk when the first summons was issued. He said attempts were made to regularise her position in two documents issued by the Department of Justice, which were signed by persons stated to be "an officer authorised in this behalf by the said Minister". The second summons was issued in reliance of those documents.
The judge said the office of District Court clerk was an important statutory position carrying serious responsibilities in the administration of justice. They were not only appointed by the Minister but held office at the will of the Minister. In his view, it was "perfectly practical" for the Minister personally to appoint District Court clerks. He did not have to conduct interviews but must personally make the decision on appointments.
The judge held that Ms Cawley had not been properly appointed and the summons of December 16th, 1996, was invalid.
But, he added, the only defect in the summons issued by her, on the evidence, was that it did not contain the name of an appropriate clerk. It might very well be open to the District Court office in Ballina to issue a new summons under the name of a properly appointed District Court clerk.
He said the only appointment challenged in the proceedings was that of Ms Cawley. But his decision did not preclude the applicant from raising a defence that the proceedings may be irrevocably invalid because of time limits, on the basis that the application for the issue of summons may not have been made to the appropriate office of the District Court, in that there may not have been a properly appointed District Court clerk in the Ballina District Court office.