About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] IESC 17
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Supreme Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Donal O'Donnell

Delivering judgment for the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell stated: “The function of a commissioner for oaths is a limited, but nevertheless important one… It seems to me that so long as a formal application is necessary to be appointed a commissioner for oaths and that that is a function to be discharged by the Chief Justice, it is not satisfactory that an application should be treated as a formality.”

Background

In 2020, Mr Declan Jordan issued an application to be appointed as a commissioner oaths. His petition recorded his occupation, place of residence and stated that he was familiar with the law and practice relating to the administration of oaths, affirmations and declarations. Mr Jordan’s application was also supported by certificates of fitness signed by local residents, business owners and legal professionals which vouched for his skill and trustworthiness.

On 15 December 2020, the former Chief Justice Frank Clarke appointed Mr Jordan as a commissioner for oaths in and for County Donegal pursuant to his power under s.10 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961.

A complaint was then received from An Garda Síochána to the effect that Mr Jordan had, since his appointment as commissioner for oaths, been convicted of careless driving and failure to provide a blood or urine specimen. The complaint also suggested that the said convictions had led Mr Jordan to cease his practice as peace commissioner.

However, it became apparent that the said convictions predated Mr Jordan’s appointment as peace commissioner. Accordingly, the procedure under Practice Direction SC22 in respect of initiating an inquiry concerning a commissioner for oaths was engaged, and proceedings were listed before the Supreme Court.

Prior to the hearing, Mr Jordan had indicated to his solicitor that he would resign as a commissioner for oaths.

The Supreme Court

The Chief Justice confirmed that in circumstances where Mr Jordan had resigned, it was unnecessary for the court to adjudicate upon the complaint. Nonetheless, the court considered that a general issue of a commissioner’s failure to disclose a conviction for a criminal offence in his application for appointment had been raised, and so it became necessary to clarify future practice in that regard.

Mr Justice O’Donnell noted: “The function of a commissioner for oaths is a limited, but nevertheless important one. The warrant appointing an individual as commissioner is accompanied by a letter from the Supreme Court Office on the instructions of the Chief Justice, drawing the attention of the newly appointed commissioner and his or her solicitor to the importance of abiding by the rules and regulations governing the discharge of duties of a commissioner.”

The Chief Justice continued: “This letter stresses that on every occasion that an affidavit is sworn it is the obligation of the commissioner to know the deponent or that he or she has satisfactorily and properly identified the deponent and furthermore, a meaningful administration of the oath is given to the deponent. This in itself means that the office of commissioner is important. Furthermore, the fact of appointment by the Chief Justice and the grant of a warrant of appointment suggests that appointment as a commissioner is a matter of some significance.”

Highlighting that Mr Jordan had failed to disclose his convictions in the course of his application for appointment, that his own solicitors were not aware of them and that he had not brought the convictions to the attention of the former Chief Justice, the court stated that “it is not satisfactory that an application should be treated as a formality”.

The Chief Justice opined: “I consider desirable that the application to be appointed a commissioner should include a statement that the applicant is not aware of any other matter which might reflect on his or her capacity or suitability to be a commissioner for oaths, and provide that where there is any such matter that details should be provided, including a criminal conviction for any offence. Similarly, it is necessary that the certificate provided by members of the local business community and legal profession should contain a similar provision.”

The court clarified: “In principle, I am satisfied that conviction of a serious offence would in itself disqualify a person from being an appropriate person to be a commissioner, and a conviction of a serious offence following his or her appointment would justify the Chief Justice in removing the commissioner from the list of persons entitled to act as a commissioner for oaths. In cases of less serious offences, it may be necessary to inquire into the circumstances of the offence. Failure to disclose a matter such as a recent conviction for any offence, may itself be a matter relevant to the appointment. All of this points to the importance of such information being disclosed…”

Conclusion

The Chief Justice concluded: “I will direct that in future all applications should include a statement by the applicant and any person supporting the application that the applicant (or the individual as the case may be) is not aware of any matter relating to his or her suitability to be appointed a commissioner for oaths, unless specified in the application.”

Commissioner for Oaths – Declan Jordan [2024] IESC 17