Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 1990

Vol. 397 No. 9

Written Answers. - Invalid Criminal Convictions.

Patrick McCartan

Question:

31 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Justice the steps he intends to take in light of the decision of the Supreme Court on 8 March, 1990 that hundreds of criminal convictions made by a district justice in four years up to 1988 are invalid, because of a mistake made by his Department regarding the age of the justice and the fact that the attempt by the Oireachtas to validate the convictions was unconstitutional; if persons convicted by the district justice can seek to have their convictions declared invalid and seek to have fines repaid; if he will outline the implications of the Supreme Court judgment for decisions made by the justice in civil cases and our judicial system generally; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Burke)

The Supreme Court decision, which consists of four judgments, is under examination and I am not in a position to indicate the steps that may be appropriate for me to take in relation to the matters concerned. In so far as new legislation may be involved I could not undertake to say, in the context of Parliamentary Questions, whether or not I may have proposals for legislative changes in particular areas. Any such proposals would be announced, in the ordinary way, only after Government approval.

As regards the practical implications, I should point out that in so far as any conviction may be invalidated, the Supreme Court decision carries the implication that any complaint validity made in respect of an alleged offence, may yet be brought to trial.

There is an implication in the Deputy's question that the Supreme Court has found that the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1988 is unconstitutional. It is a fact of some significance that the Supreme Court did not so find. I am satisfied, having regard to the background of this matter, that the promotion of his legislation was the correct and prudent course to take at the time. A serious problem came to light and the legislation was the correct way to deal with it. The advice at the time was that the 1988 Act ought to stand up to constitutional challenge, but I should point out that no guarantee was, or could have been, given that it would stand up or indeed that every order of the former district justice could be validated retrospectively — hence the specific provision in subsection (3) of section 1 of the Act which provides that any validation under the Act shall be subject to such limitation as is necessary to secure that it does not conflict with a constitutional right of any person.

I should also like to correct the implication in the Deputy's question that the problem arose solely from a mistake made in the Department of Justice. I think it is right that I should again state the facts of the matter as given in this House on 8 December 1988 — column 880 of the Official Report:

Mr. Mahon was appointed as a temporary justice of the District Court in October 1976 and as a permanent justice in May 1977. He reached the normal retirement age of 65 years in January 1984. He should, before that date, have applied for a continuation warrant but did not do so and a warrant was not made. Normal practice is for the Department to remind a justice well in advance of the need to apply for a warrant. A reminder was not given in this case, however, because of a mistake in departmental records. Mr. Mahon first applied for appointment in April 1973 and in his application form he gave his year of birth as 1920. This was recorded in departmental records. In January 1977, Mr. Mahon submitted a birth certificate which showed his year of birth as 1919 but the discrepancy was not noticed and the incorrect year of birth remained in departmental records.