AN INTERPRETER was removed from a court case after her employer received an "irate phone call" from the Courts Service over her decision to provide a sworn affidavit which conflicted with a District Court judge's account of proceedings in his court, the High Court was told yesterday.
Pauline Walley SC said the interpreter was taken off the case after she, along with three other people, swore affidavits which provided accounts at variance with District Judge Geoffrey Browne's version of what had happened in his court during a particular case. Interpreter Duy Linh Geraty was removed after her employers, Word Perfect Translations Ltd, got an irate phone call from the Courts Service after Ms Geraty's affidavit was filed with the courts, Ms Walley said.
Counsel was making submissions during a judicial review hearing arising from Judge Browne's decision on July 11th last to give more time to the State to serve a book of evidence on a Vietnamese man, Tran Tuan Anh, who is charged with having cannabis for supply in Roscommon on April 20th last.
Mr Anh, who is in custody awaiting trial, is seeking an order from the High Court quashing Judge Browne's decision to extend the time.
He claims the court should have heard evidence as to why the book of evidence was not ready before the judge granted the extension.
Yesterday, Sunniva McDonagh SC, for the DPP and the judge, said an affidavit sworn by Judge Browne in relation to the judicial review proceedings had not been filed in court and she, counsel, was not going to open it.
The DPP was disputing what Mr Anh's counsel was saying and considered it a misrepresentation of the situation, Ms McDonagh said.
Ms Walley said Ms Geraty and three other people who were present in court that day, two of whom were solicitors, had sworn affidavits that no oral evidence was given, either from a garda or other person, which could explain why the book was not ready.
Judge Browne and prosecuting garda superintendent Seán Ward had then sworn affidavits in response to Mr Anh's judicial review proceedings and it was those affidavits which gave rise to this "controversy", Ms Walley said.
Although the DPP was not submitting the judge's affidavit, that affidavit had been opened before the High Court earlier this week and had been supplied to her side and was therefore before the court, counsel said.
One of the "troubling" features of this case was that Ms Geraty had been "dismissed" from Mr Anh's drugs case in what was "a quite extraordinary set of events", Ms Walley said. Ms Geraty was employed by Word Perfect on a case by case basis, was "distraught" and was under the impression that she would lose other work as a result, counsel said.
It was disturbing that someone should lose work as a result of swearing an affidavit, Ms Walley said. "It is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice and saying you cannot give evidence before the High Court and you are to keep quiet," counsel said. Ms Walley said she would be seeking an opportunity to cross-examine Supt Ward on his affidavit.
Mr Justice Michael Peart said he had to disqualify himself from hearing the matter because he had been the Dublin agent for Judge Browne's solicitor's practice before both of them were appointed to the bench.
He adjourned the case to next week to allow another judge to hear the matter.