DPP may take High Court case on legality of District Courts

THE Director of Public Prosecutions is considering taking a case to the High Court to clarify the legality of decisions taken in district courts about which planning difficulties may exist.

Mr Eamonn Barnes may challenge the decision of a District Court judge in Co Donegal last week. Judge Thomas A. Fitzpatrick threw out 250 summonses after hearing that the venue for the hearing, a Milford hotel, did not have the planning permission required for its use as a court.

The difficulty over planning permission leaves the validity of thousands of rulings in a number of district courts over the past 2 1/2 years open to challenge.

Legal experts said a High Court ruling was needed to put the validity of the rulings beyond doubt.

The Fine Gael chairman of the Dail Committee on Legislation and Security, Mr Charles Flanagan, called on the Attorney General, Mr Dermot Gleeson, to make an "immediate" application to the High Court to clarify the issue.

Mr Ken Murphy, the director general of the Law Society, called on either the Attorney General, the DPP or the Minister for Justice, Mrs Owen, to take a case to the High Court to clear up any confusion. But he did not believe the rulings were invalid.

The Attorney General is of the view that planning difficulties relating to temporary courthouses would not invalidate any sitting of a District Court in such premises, according to a Department of Justice statement.

"The discontinuance of the use of certain premises as courthouses is a purely precautionary measure taken until the planning status of those premises is clarified and has no bearing on the validity of sittings of courts in those premises which have already taken place," the statement read.

The Department yesterday issued two more orders moving District Court hearings in Cos Galway and Monaghan, bringing the total to eight. Five of these are in Co Donegal and another in Co Offaly.

The president of the District Court, Judge Peter Smithwick, told The Irish Times that in his view the validity of rulings made in buildings about which planning permission problems existed would not be affected by the difficulties that have emerged.

Seeking a definitive ruling from the High Court was a matter for the DPP "or for any defendant", he said. "But in my judgment I would imagine that any ruling given in any case would remain valid."

The provision of premises for court hearings is the responsibility of the local authorities, which are also the planning authorities. Since 1994 a process involving public notices, newspaper advertisements and bringing the matter to the attention of the planning authorities has been required for buildings being earmarked for public use.

The opening of a District Court in the Dublin Central Mission building, Abbey Street, Dublin, was delayed last year after the Association of Judges of the District Court wrote to the Minister for Justice, Mrs Owen, on October 25th, saying the premises did not have the required planning permission.

Judges asked to sit in the court would be put in the "invidious" position of being asked to sit in a court which was in breach of the planning laws, which was a criminal offence, the letter said. The association told Mrs Owen it hoped it would not have to make an application to the High Court.

The opening of the court was put back and the planning process complied with.

Department sources said it was the responsibility under law of the local authorities to locate premises for court hearings and to ensure the proper planning permission existed.

But an informed source said that since the emergence of the current difficulties it had come to light that under the Courthouses, Provision and Maintenance Act 1935, the Minister for Justice was required to ensure specific standards in all premises used for court hearings.