The Supreme Court yesterday overturned a High Court judgment which resulted in thousands of summonses before District Courts being discarded. Legal sources suggested the State may now move to reinstate the more serious cases. Earlier this month Mr Justice McCracken decided that summonses in a road traffic case were invalid because they had been issued by a woman who had not been personally appointed by the Minister for Justice to the post of District Court clerk.
The ruling had far-reaching implications as questions arose in many District Courts as to whether court clerks had been properly appointed. Several District Court judges dismissed summonses.
The State appealed the McCracken judgment to the Supreme Court, which heard submissions last Tuesday. In the appeal the State contended that it would be impossible for a minister to keep in personal contact with each of the hundreds of decisions taken in his Department each day.
It was submitted that powers vested in the minister might be exercised without any express act of delegation by responsible officials on his behalf.
Yesterday's decision was unanimous, with all five Supreme Court judges allowing the appeal. The court based its decision on the "Carltona principle", enunciated in a 1943 English case.
Mrs Justice Denham said the core of the Carltona principle was that as a matter of statutory construction responsible officials might exercise some of the statutory powers of a minister.
The principle enabled ministers to function efficiently in, and yet to accept responsibility for, complex modern government where a vast number of decisions had to be taken.
It enabled ministers to remain responsible and accountable to the legislature, while having responsible officials make many decisions. The officials would not consult the minister but might recite words such as, "I am directed by the Minister". They exercised devolved power. It was a practical rule which had important constitutional implications. It retained accountability. The principle envisaged the official acting "as" the minister rather than "delegated by" the minister. Responsible officials might exercise some of the statutory powers of a minister.
Mrs Justice Denham said the High Court erred in not applying the Carltona principle. The principle did apply, and the appointment of the particular District Court clerk and the summonses issued were both valid.
Mr Justice Keane said the undisputed evidence was that before 1980 the minister for justice simply appointed the person recommended to him by the Civil Service Commissioners to the office of District Court clerk. The minister's role was a formal one.
Since December 1979 court clerks had been appointed from the Civil Service grades of executive officer upwards. The decision to appoint a particular person of the relevant grade was made by the personnel office of the Department of Justice to whom the minister delegated responsibility for dealing with personnel issues.
The minister's role again was purely formal. This was in accordance with the Carltona principle.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said the appointment of a District Court clerk was an important matter. But it was not more important than many of the decisions to be made by civil servants in the name of the minister under the 1935 Aliens Act (where, in an alien's case, the Carltona principle was in 1996 held to be correct).
Mr Justice O'Flaherty and Mr Justice Barrington also allowed the State's appeal.