A MAN who was not allowed to vote at a polling station where his father had voted earlier has lost an action for damages.
The High Court case was taken by Mr Patrick J. Graham of Elton Court, Meelick, Co Clare. At the time of the 1987 general election he lived in Limerick city, and until six months earlier had lived near Clarina, in the Limerick West constituency.
He sued the State and the Minister for the Environment for defamation and negligence.
At the conclusion of Mr Graham's case, the judge granted a defence application to have the defamation claim withdrawn from the jury. He then heard the negligence claim without a jury.
Mr Justice Morris said he accepted Mr Graham was vigilant to ensure that he was entitled to vote. He received his voter's card prior to the election, with the number 652.
At Ballybrown school in Co Limerick a presiding officer, Ms Breda Gavin, indicated to him that he did not have a vote and refused to allow him to vote.
The judge said he had no doubt that what occurred was that the father, also Mr Patrick Graham, presented himself at the school in the morning. Ms Gavin, believing his name appeared at entry 652 as "Graham, Patrick (Jnr)", furnished him with a ballot paper and permitted him to vote.
Ms Gavin was aware that the plaintiff had moved to Limerick six months before but than his father, mother and other family members still resided in the area.
Ms Gavin recognised that the description "(Jnr)" was inappropriate to Mr Graham senior.
However, he (judge) accepted that the Department's directions provided that "an elector should not be prevented from voting on account of a misnomer or inaccurate description in the register if the register includes the name which, in your opinion, was intended to be the person's name."
The judge said Ms Gavin decided since Mr Graham senior was accompanied by his wife and daughter, and since the plaintiff had left the locality some months beforehand, that the word "(Jnr)" was a misnomer and in exercising her discretion decided to issue, Mr Graham senior with the ballot paper.
Two personation agents present signified their approval.
Mr Justice Morris said it had been established to his satisfaction that was not the correct decision. It was clear No 652 related to the plaintiff and not his father.
However, that fact did not establish negligence on the part of Ms Gavin.
She exercised a judgment upon the problem and had valid grounds for reaching the decision she reached.
These would include that Mr Graham senior's name did not appear elsewhere in the list; that the plaintiff had left the area for some months; and that Mr Graham senior presented himself in the company of his wife and daughter, who both appeared on the electors' list.
The question of costs was adjourned.