State (King) v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1984
• Date: 01 January 1984
• Docket Number: [1973 No. 246 SS]
• Court: High Court

The State (King) v. Minister for Justice

The State (at the Prosecution of Eamonn P. King and John P.C. Goff)

and

The Minister for Justice

[1973 No. 246 SS]

High Court

Stateside - Mandamus - Minister of State - Statutory power - Enforcement of repairs to courthouse - Minister directed to exercise his powers - Courthouses (Provision and Maintenance) Act, 1935 (No. 18), ss. 3, 6.

By s. 3 of the Act of 1935 it is the duty of a council of a county or of a county borough to provide and maintain in its functional area courthouse accommodation in the manner there stated. Whenever a council fails or neglects to maintain in proper repair and condition any such accommodation which it is so required to maintain, it is provided by s. 6, sub-s. 1, of that Act that the Minister for Justice, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, shall direct the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland "to execute such repairs and to do such other work as may be necessary or proper" to put such courthouse accommodation into proper repair and condition.

The courthouse in Waterford was allowed to fall into a very bad state of disrepair and in the year 1967 the solicitors of the Waterford Law Society complained to the Corporation of Waterford about the condition of the courthouse. In the year 1970 the judges of the High Court refused to sit in the courthouse and the Minister for Justice urged the Corporation to effect the necessary repairs. Alternative accommodation, provided by the Corporation, proved to be unsatisfactory, and in 1973 the prosecutors, being solicitors practising in Waterford, obtained in the High Court a conditional order of mandamus commanding the respondent Minister to exercise the powers conferred on him by s. 6 of the Act of 1935, unless cause were shown to the contrary. In 1974 the prosecutors applied for an order absolute, notwithstanding the cause shown by the respondent.

Held by Doyle J., in disallowing the cause shown, 1, that the alternative accommodation provided by the Corporation was unsuitable and inadequate.

2. That the repair of the courthouse, although involving extensive renewal work, was feasible and that the prosecutors were entitled to an order absolute.

Byrne v. Ireland [1972] I.R. 241 considered.

Cases mentioned in this report:—

¹ Lurcott v. Wakely [1911] 1 K.B. 905.

² Groome v. Fodhla Printing Co. [1943] I.R. 380.

³ R. v. Powell (1841) 1 Q.B. 352.

⁴ R. v. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 387.

⁵ R. (Diamond & Fleming) v. Warnock [1946] N.I. 171.

⁶ Byrne v. Ireland [1972] I.R. 241.

Mandamus.

On the 23rd July, 1973, Finlay J. (as he then was) made an order, on the application of the prosecutors, commanding Patrick Cooney (the Minister for Justice) to exercise "the statutory duties imposed on him by s. 6, sub-s. 1, of the Courthouses (Provision and Maintenance) Act, 1935, by directing, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to execute such repairs and to do such other works as may be necessary or proper to put the courthouse accommodation at Waterford into proper repair and condition unless cause shown to the contrary before 17th September 1973." Cause was shown by an affidavit sworn by a principal officer of the Department of Justice and filed on the 17th September, 1973, on behalf of the respondent Minister stating that the Corporation of Waterford had decided to repair the courthouse in Waterford. By an affidavit filed on the 2nd May, 1974, the first prosecutor averred that the Corporation of Waterford had not taken any steps to restore the courthouse.

On the 8th October, 1970, Murnaghan J. said that he would not sit in the Waterford courthouse until it had been repaired, and similar decisions were taken by Pringle and Gannon JJ. On the 14th May, 1971, District Justice J.R. Coghlan transferred all the sittings of the District Court from Waterford to Tramore. From the 16th February, 1971, His Honour Judge Sean MacD. Fawsitt held all the sittings of the Circuit Court in Dungarvan instead of in Waterford and on the 16th November, 1972, the President of the Circuit Court (O Briain J.) made an order removing the city of Waterford from the list of Circuit Court sittings.

By s. 1 of the Courthouses (Provision and Maintenance) Act, 1935, the word "council" in that Act means the council of a county and includes the council of a county borough, and "the Minister" means the Minister for Justice.

Section 3 of the Act of 1935 provides:—

"(1) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, every council shall provide and shall maintain in the functional area of such council such courthouse accommodation for the following purposes as the Minister shall direct either generally or in any particular case, that is to say:—

• (a) for the sittings of any Court of Justice sittings of which are held in such functional area, including retiring rooms for the Judge or Justice presiding in such Court and retiring rooms for members of the legal profession, litigants and witnesses attending the sittings of any such Court, and

• (b) for the transaction of the business by law assigned to or usually transacted in or by any office or officer of any such Court, both during the sitting of such Court and at all other times, whether such business is Court business or not, and

• ...