Judgment was reserved by the Supreme Court yesterday in an appeal brought by the State against a High Court finding that a District Court clerk had not been properly appointed. Yesterday's appeal arises out of Mr Justice McCracken's recent High Court judgment which found that a summons in a road traffic case was invalid because it had not been issued by a properly-appointed District Court clerk. Mr Justice McCracken held that District Court clerks should be personally appointed by the Minister for Justice.
The ruling has had far-reaching implications for many District Court cases because it has focused on the manner in which District Court clerks are appointed.
During yesterday's appeal Mr Justice O'Flaherty said that the Civil Service had a fine tradition over 75 years and the system, on the whole, had operated effectively. The whole machinery of justice had been thrown into turmoil following this particular case.
"Surely we are obliged to live in the real world?" the judge asked.
Mr Michael McDowell SC, on behalf of the person to whom the contested summons was issued, said that the system of appointing District Court clerks may have been going on for a long time without any damage being done. But people also lived in the legal world, counsel said.
The position of District Court clerk was a statutory office, he said. If the statute stipulated that the Minister should make the decision of appointing a person to the position of District Court clerk, then the Minister must make the decision.
Mr Gerard Hogan SC, for the State, said that the Attorney General disagreed with the finding of the High Court that the Minister must personally consider the appointment of each District Court clerk.
Mr Hogan said that it would be impossible for a Minister to keep in personal contact with all of the hundreds of decisions taken in his Department each day.
He submitted that the powers vested in a Minister might be exercised on his behalf by responsible officials.
Mr McDowell said that the Supreme Court should not entertain arguments based on suggested consequences of the High Court ruling. He said that the High Court finding did not affect the validity of orders made by any court.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said that the issue for the court was whether the appointment of a District Court clerk had to be made by the Minister personally or whether such an appointment could be made within the structure of the Minister's Department by a responsible officer.
Mr Justice Hamilton said that surely the court must approach the matter with a certain degree of common sense and try to visualise what the legislature desired in 1926 when it introduced the Courts Officers Act.
He asked if Mr McDowell was seriously suggesting that when the legislature passed the section of the 1926 Act dealing with District Court clerks it had visualised that each appointment would be made by the Minister.
Mr McDowell said that was his argument. The legislature had never had in mind that an officer of the Department would fill this particular position from the entire rank of Civil Service officers, he said.