• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Investigation Reports /
• Complaints against the General Register Office

Complaints against the General Register Office

Appendices

Appendix 1

Response of the General Register Office to the Report of the Ombudsman

Before commenting on the individual cases, it is important to be aware of the general business and legislative environment within which the General Register Office (GRO) and the wider Civil Registration Service operates in. Until the 2002, the GRO had had no significant reform or investment since its establishment in 1845 and essentially operated a system of civil registration firmly rooted in the nineteenth century. This was a totally paper-based system, operated in accordance with legislation unsuited to the needs of a modern society. In 1996, the Government established a project to computerise all the registration records going back to the beginning of registration in 1845. This project involved assembling, photographing and digitising 26.7 million registration records. This was a difficult, painstaking, repetitive task accomplished over nine years involving considerable challenges.

In 1999, the Government approved an extension to the modernisation programme to encompass:-

• Design and development of new business processes and procedures, and enhanced management structures
• Introduction of modern technology
• Reform of legislation to underpin the delivery of a modernised service to meet the needs of society and facilitate the wider eGovernment agenda.

This programme culminated in the computerisation of the entire registration process, passing of electronic data from/to other agencies, reorganisation of service delivery and the passing of the Civil Registration Act 2004, thereby replacing all of the old legislation governing civil registration. In parallel, the Government established an interdepartmental committee to oversee reform of the marriage law. The recommendations of this committee have been incorporated into the marriage provisions of the Civil Registration Act 2004.

The technical solution underpinning the new process includes:-

• The creation of a national event database which facilitates the on-line seamless searching and retrieval of both historic and new registration records
• The capture and storage in electronic format of historic records (the first of its kind worldwide)
• On-line registration of life events (the first in Europe)
• Use of electronic pads to capture signatures as part of the registration record
• An interoperability framework for inter-agency transfer of data, thus enabling enhanced delivery of other public services

The computerisation project was awarded winner in one category and overall bronze medal from the Wall Street Journal (European Innovation Awards) in 2003, and received the Computerworld Honours Commemorative Medallion in 2004. In addition, the project has been exhibited at national and international conferences.

The success of the modernisation programme is a credit to all involved and represents a huge contribution to the culture and heritage of this country. It has also facilitated the wider modernisation agenda and has led to a massively improved service to the public.

Response to Ombudsman’s Observations on Individual Cases

Ms A

In this case the birth was registered in 1996 and no father's details were registered. In January 1998 the father obtained a court order under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, naming him as father and granting him access to the child. In March 1998, the father applied to have the birth re-registered to include his name as father. Re-registration in these circumstances was provided for under Section 7A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland) 1880 (as inserted by the Status of Children Act 1987). There is no doubt that the father had the right to have his details added to the birth registration under these provisions. At the time the birth was originally registered, there was no provision for entering a surname on a birth registration. This changed with the passing of the Registration of Births Act 1996. Section 1(2) of this Act requires a birth re-registered under the Act to have a surname.

This Office proceeded to re-register the birth on foot of the application by the father and, in addition, added a surname and certain details pertaining to the mother. Legal advice was received by this Office in 2004 which stated that (a) this Office acted ultra vires, (b) the previous case could not be used as a precedent, and (c) that there was not any statutory provision, as the law then stood, to correct the error. (It should be noted that a certificate of baptism shows the child's surname to be that of the father. This is part of the evidence this Office would have relied on to effect the re-registration.) On the basis of the legal advice, this Office was not in a position to take any action within the law as it then stood.

When the relevant provisions of the CRA were commenced in December 2005, the matter was re-visited and updated legal advice was sought. In summary, the legal advice is to the effect that:-

(a) The court order obtained by the father shows that the court was satisfied that he was the father

(b) The re-registration effected by the GRO validly inserted the father's details

(c) No other details should have been entered at that time, and to alter the details of the mother and child was ultra vires.

This Office has been advised that the changes to the birth registration, other than the insertion of the father's details, were invalid and that these changes should be deleted. An enquiry under Section 65 of the Civil Registration Act should be undertaken in relation to the surname of the child. As this Office is in agreement with the legal advice given, this Office does not have any course of action open to it, other than to follow that advice.

It should be noted that since 2001 it is the practice of this Office to notify the other parent where one parent seeks to have a birth re-registered on foot of a court order, and to allow 21 days for receipt of the other parent's observations.

Ms B

This case involved the re-registration of the birth of a child to include the father's details. The address and occupation recorded for the mother on re-registration were current, rather than at the time of the birth. These errors were subsequently rectified under the provisions of Section 27 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland) 1880. Since February 2005, it is the policy of this Office to record the details as they pertained at the time of birth. This is made clear in all forms and documentation issued, and registrars are instructed to make every effort to ensure that these are the details registered.

Mrs C

In this case, two errors were made in the registration of a birth. The birth date was registered as 24 December instead of 25 December, and the child's sex was incorrectly registered as female. In the Ombudsman’s report it is stated that the errors were made by the Registrar. While this may be true, it is also possible that the information supplied by the qualified informant was incorrect.

The procedure that was followed in this case was the only legally permissible course, given the legislative provision in force at the time. Section 27(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland) 1880 provided that an "…error of fact or substance may be corrected by entry in the margin (without any alteration of the original entry)…". However, the register would only be accessible to a registrar, so no other person would have access to the incorrect data. Also, Section 6 of the Vital Statistics and Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1952 provides that regulations may be made for the issue of abridged (so-called clear) birth certificates. These regulations provide that the birth certificate would show the entry as corrected, and would not include marginal notes or the incorrect original data. The correction of errors would, therefore, not be disclosed to any individual or organisation which requested sight of the birth certificate.

Since the events in this case, the law has been updated and the process of registration has been computerised. Part 3 of the Civil Registration Act 2004 (CRA), which was commenced on 5 December 2005, governs the registration of births and stillbirths, and replaces all the old legislation. Sections 63 and 64 provide for the correction of errors. Section 63 provides for the correction of a clerical error, or an error of fact on application to a Superintendent Registrar by a person having an interest in the matter. Where the correction is in respect of a birth registered electronically, the incorrect or missing data are simply corrected or entered by a registrar. There is no provision for a marginal note, nor is one necessary. The computer system will, however, maintain an audit trail of such corrections. Where the correction is in respect of a birth registered using the old manual system, a new entry is created in the electronic database with a link to the original entry.

When application is made for a birth certificate in respect of a register entry which has been corrected under the manual (marginal note) procedure, the record is updated to create a new electronic record to reflect the corrections, and the certificate is issued from the electronic entry. This new electronic entry is linked to the original for audit purposes.

Another significant change in the new legislation is that the birth must be registered by the parents. The birth notification is received from the hospital and entered in the electronic database. When the parents present at the registrar's office, their identities and marital status is checked. The registrar then takes them through the data supplied by the hospital to ensure it is correct. Any additional data is entered in the electronic register and checked before the parents sign the register electronically.

Mr & Mrs D

In this case, certain errors were made when a manual marriage certificate was issued. Under the old manual system, certificates were transcribed from the original register, or from certified copies of the register, depending on where the certificate was issued. This process was tedious and labour-intensive and prone to errors for a variety of reasons, including poor legibility. In this case, the issue was compounded by the fact that the entry in the parish register differed from that which was returned by the parish to the registrar. As part of the computerisation project, all register entries were photographed and captured electronically. Were this certificate to be issued now, the original digitised photograph of the register entry would be transposed onto the form of certificate by the electronic print programs. This process eliminates the need for transcription in most cases, thereby ensuring that what was originally registered is what is reproduced on the certificate.

Recognition of Foreign Divorces

Before commenting in detail on these cases, it is important to set out the legal framework within which such cases are considered. The legislation governing recognition of foreign divorces is the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986. Section 5 of the Act provides that a divorce shall be recognised if granted in the country where either spouse is domiciled. Where neither spouse is domiciled in the State, a divorce shall be recognised if, although not granted in the country where either spouse is domiciled, it is recognised in the country or countries where the spouses are domiciled. Whether or not to recognise a foreign divorce is a serious matter with significant implications for all parties involved and, in some instances, for third parties.

The question of domicile is crucial to the recognition of foreign divorces. In its consideration of this question in relation to individual applications for recognition of divorce for the purpose of marriage in the State, the GRO relies on the common law as determined by the Courts. Lambert –v- An tÁrd Chláraitheoir is the key case in this regard. In his judgment, the trial judge made a number of determinations which are of relevance to the GRO in this regard:-

(a) "…recognition of such divorces must be resolved as a question of Irish Law with respect to whether or not one of the parties to the divorce was domiciled in the foreign jurisdiction granting the divorce." (emphasis added)

(b) "…the most important piece of evidence in regard to the domicile…is her own sworn evidence that she had established her permanent home in England prior to making her divorce application."

(c) "The determination of…domicile in this case is dependent on the weight which is to be attached to her own sworn evidence." (emphasis added)

(d) "…an uncontradicted declaration of intention which is consistent with a party's actions may be regarded as evidence of an acquisition of a domicile of choice."

In CM –v- TM (No 2) 1990 IR 52, Barr J states:-

"The domicile of origin of a person continues until it is proved to have been intentionally and voluntarily abandoned and supplanted by another – see judgment of Black J in re Joyce; Corbet –v- Fagan 1946 IR 277 at page 301 which is quoted with approval by Griffin J in T –v- T 1983 IR 29 at page 35. The latter judgment is also an authority for the well settled principle that the burden of proving a change of domicile from a domicile of origin to a domicile of choice is on the person who asserts it. It is accepted by Counsel for the wife that the burden of proof is an onerous one where the domicile to be displaced is a domicile of origin, see Henderson –v- Henderson 1967 P 77 at [age 80 and Holden –v- Holden 1968 NI 7."

It is apparent from the above that the burden of proof of acquisition of a domicile of choice is onerous, that it must be proven as a matter of Irish Law, that the burden of proof lies with the person asserting acquisition of a domicile of choice, and that an uncontradicted declaration which is consistent with a party's actions may be regarded as evidence of an acquisition of a domicile of choice.

In all of the cases mentioned by the Ombudsman, the central question to be determined is whether the party asserting acquisition of a domicile of choice has provided evidence of that.

Mr E

In order for a foreign divorce to be recognised where one party is domiciled in this State, one of the other parties to the marriage must have been domiciled in the jurisdiction which granted the divorce at the time the divorce proceedings were initiated. Mr E is domiciled in Ireland, having been born here (domicile of origin) and lived here all his life. The crucial question, therefore, is in respect of the domicile of Mr E’s wife. Mr E’s wife was born in Ireland and therefore has a domicile of origin in Ireland. Mr E’s wife claims that she acquired a domicile of choice in England. The onus of proof is on the person claiming acquisition of a domicile of choice and the burden of proof is onerous. It is a mixed question of intention and fact. While Mr E’s wife may have had the intention to abandon her domicile of origin, her subsequent actions in returning to Ireland clearly showed that she had not done so.

The application for recognition of the foreign divorce was made to this Office in March 2003. On 9 May 2003, Mr E’s solicitor provided an affidavit from Mr E’s wife. Some days later, on 15 May 2003, this Office responded to Mr E’s solicitor setting out in some detail the legal requirements for recognition of a foreign divorce and explaining why the evidence provided was not sufficient to prove acquisition of a domicile of choice by Mr E’s wife. (The affidavit of Mr E’s wife did not make any reference to her intention to "…obtain a domicile of choice in that country.") Therefore, this Office had not been provided with material to satisfy the evidential requirements (which had been outlined to Mr. E’s solicitor) and was not in a position to recognise the divorce.

Mr E subsequently obtained a declaration under Section 29 of the Family Law Act 1995 that the divorce was entitled to recognition in this jurisdiction. It should be noted that this is not a judicial review of the decision taken by this Office under the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986.

Mr F

In this case, Mr F had been married in England in 1986. He and his wife moved to Australia in 1991. Mr F left Australia in 2000 and divorce proceedings were initiated by his wife in Australia in 2002. Mr F took up residence in Ireland in 2002. His whereabouts between 2000 and 2002 are not indicated.

Mr F was born in the England, so that is his domicile of origin. If he has not acquired a domicile of choice in Ireland, his domicile is England. His domicile at the time the divorce proceedings commenced is unknown, as he left Australia in the year the proceedings were initiated and his whereabouts between then and his coming to Ireland in 2002 are not known to this Office. If Mr F’s domicile is England, his Australian divorce would be recognised there. However, under Section 5(4) of the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986, where neither party is domiciled in Ireland, the divorce must be recognised in the country where both spouses are domiciled. This is why the questions concerning the domicile of Mr F’s former wife arise, as the divorce must also be recognised in the country where she is domiciled.

In gathering the information necessary for this Office to decide on a recognition of divorce application, questionnaires are required to be completed by, or on behalf of, each of the parties to the divorce. The questionnaire in respect of Mr F’s wife was completed by him. In this case, Mr F stated that the intentions of his former wife concerning permanent residence were unknown. The Office of the Ombudsman supplied this Office with a photocopy of an application for a divorce made by Mr F and his former wife to the Australian court in 2002.

In the Lambert case, Kinlen J stated that "…an uncontradicted declaration of intention which is consistent with a party's actions may be regarded as evidence of an acquisition of a domicile of choice." This is the basis for the request for direct evidence from Mr F’s former wife.

Ms G

Ms G married in Ireland in 1994, having been previously married and divorced in England. Both Ms G and her former husband had a domicile of origin in Ireland. Ms G returned to live in Ireland after her second marriage. Doubt was cast on the validity of the second marriage as, for some reason, her divorce had not come to the attention of the registrar prior to the marriage.

This case first came to attention in January 1996. On 31 January 1996, this Office wrote to Ms G enclosing the standard questionnaires and asking her to complete and return them. When no reply was received, a further letter issued from this Office dated 14 January 1997. The questionnaires and a copy of the divorce decree were received on 25 March 1997. On 21 April 1997, this Office wrote to Ms G stating that in order to provide evidence of his acquisition of a domicile of choice in England and Wales, her former husband should provide an affidavit indicating the circumstances in which the decision to reside permanently in England and Wales had arisen for him, and an indication from his conduct, behaviour and actions that he had definitively determined to reside permanently in that jurisdiction. The GRO did not receive any further evidential material from Ms. G until 2001 when her former husband provided an affidavit, the contents of which constituted independent, uncontradicted evidence that he had acquired a domicile of choice in England. Upon receipt of this evidence, and the divorce could be recognised.

Ms H

Ms H married in England in 1976. A divorce was granted in England in 1981. Ms H served notice of intention to re-marry in Ireland in 1998. Ms H had a domicile of origin in Ireland and lived in England from 1976 to 1983. Ms H’s husband had a domicile of origin in Ireland, but his whereabouts and intentions as to his current domicile could not be established at the time of the intended re-marriage of Ms H. This meant that independent, uncontradicted evidence, as required by law, as to his acquisition of a domicile of choice in England could not be provided.

Conclusion

It is acknowledged that in dealing with some of the cases mentioned by the Ombudsman, certain actions were taken and delays incurred which should not have happened. In relation to cases not involving recognition of foreign divorces, there were legislative obstacles and operational deficiencies associated with a manual registration system that caused frustration for members of the public. However, most of the issues raised have been addressed through procedural change, legislative reform and investment in technology, and it is unlikely that instances such as these will arise in the future.

The position regarding recognition of foreign divorces is more problematic. The Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986 was enacted at a time when divorce was not allowed in this country, and was designed to provide for the recognition of foreign divorces while ensuring that the constitutional prohibition on divorce was not undermined. Section 29 of the Family Law Act 1995 does provide a mechanism whereby persons affected can pursue a remedy.

While the 1986 Act provides a way to recognise foreign divorces, the definition of "domicile" is a matter of common law. This Office is therefore reliant on case law to define domicile. As the circumstances of each case differ, it is an uncertain and complex process to determine whether apply the precedents can be applied to each in all and every set of circumstances which come before the Office. In addition, this Office must be extremely careful in applying the law, as the consequences of making the wrong decision would be far-reaching for all concerned. A wrong decision would have the effect of calling into question the validity of one, or possibly two, marriages, with possible "knock-on" implications for the legal status of other parties ; would cause distress to the parties affected and could lead to expensive and lengthy litigation, thereby exposing the State to claims for compensation and damages.; and would cause distress to the parties affected.

In an attempt to assist persons affected, it has been the policy of this Office for some time to tell them that we require direct evidence, in the form of an affidavit, from the person claiming the acquisition of a domicile of choice, to the effect that that person had, prior to instituting divorce proceedings, definitively determined to reside permanently in the jurisdiction which granted (or recognised) the divorce, the circumstances which caused this decision, and confirmation that the person continues to reside there. As each case is different, and as the GRO will normally only have limited information available to it, it can be difficult to be more prescriptive.

In relation to the court cases referred to, applications under Section 29 of the Family Law Act 1995 are held in camera and the GRO is a stranger to the proceedings. No judgments are issued. It is therefore not possible for the GRO to rely on these cases as precedents. It should be noted that this Office deals with about 1,500 divorce recognition clearance applications a year, the vast majority of which are without incident.

It should be noted that under EU Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (commonly known as Brussels II A) divorces granted after 1 March 2001 in EU Member States (with the exception of Denmark) are entitled to automatic recognition in all Member States.

In its dealings with members of the public, the GRO must act in accordance with the law and take all necessary steps to ensure that the rights of all parties are upheld. The lessons of the cases highlighted by the Ombudsman have been learned and this has led to changes in legislation, procedures and processes. However, we have to be mindful of the fact that society is changing rapidly and that the Civil Registration Service has to be able to adapt to evolving conditions. There is now in place a programme of continuous improvement and investment, and the report of the Ombudsman is a valuable input to that process. I welcome the recommendations of the Ombudsman and give every assurance that they will be given very careful consideration and that appropriate measures will be taken to implement them.

While there have been difficulties with the cases mentioned in the Ombudsman’s report, it has to be acknowledged that the reform programme undertaken over the past number of years has resulted in a paradigm shift in the way civil registration services are delivered. The new legislation, introduction of modern technology and reorganisation of services has resulted in a much more responsive and flexible environment for members of the public and registration personnel alike. This is evidenced by the very positive feedback received from members of the public in recent years across the full spectrum of civil registration services.

Kieran Feely

Registrar General

Appendix 2

Public Bodies and the Citizen - The Ombudsman's Guide to Standards of Best Practice for Public Servants

Public bodies should strive for the highest standards of administration in their dealings with people. And public servants should ensure that people are dealt with properly, fairly, openly and impartially. The following checklist, although not exhaustive, is a guide to standards of best practice for public servants. I hope that public bodies will find it useful in their efforts to provide a better service to their clients.

Dealing "properly" with people means dealing with them -

• promptly, without undue delay and in accordance with published time limits;
• correctly, in accordance with the law or other rules governing their entitlements and published quality standards;
• sensitively and by giving reasonable assistance, having regard to their age, to their capacity to understand often complex rules, to any disability they may have and to their feelings, privacy and convenience;
• helpfully, by simplifying procedures, forms and information on entitlements and services, maintaining proper records, and providing clear and precise details on time limits or conditions which might result in disqualification;
• carefully, where more than one public body is concerned, by ensuring proper communications between the bodies to prevent a person's needs being overlooked;
• courteously, including communicating in Irish (both written and oral) where it is clear a person wishes to do so;
• responsibly, by not adopting an adversarial approach as a matter of course where there may be a fear of litigation and by being prepared to explain why an adverse decision has been given.

Dealing "fairly" with people means -

• treating people in similar circumstances in like manner;
• accepting that rules and regulations, while important in ensuring fairness, should not be applied so rigidly or inflexibly as to create inequity;
• avoiding penalties which are out of proportion to what is necessary to ensure compliance with the rules;
• being prepared to review rules and procedures and change them if necessary;
• giving adequate notice before changing rules in a way which adversely affects a person's entitlements;
• having an internal review system so that adverse decisions can be looked at again and reviewed by someone not involved in the first decision;
• informing people of how they can appeal, co-operating fully in any such appeal and being open to proposals for redress including apologies, explanations and payment of appropriate compensation;
• making appropriate redress which puts the person back into the position he/she would have been in if the public body had acted properly in the first place;
• adopting a policy for dealing with the small number of people who act in a vexatious manner or in bad faith, which strikes a balance between the interests of the public body, its staff and the person concerned.

Dealing openly with people means -

• putting people in contact with the officials of the public body with responsibility for dealing with them and, if appropriate, referring them to alternative sources of assistance;
• making available and keeping up to date, comprehensive information on the rules and practices which govern public schemes and programmes;
• giving people full information on the reasons for a decision which adversely affects them including details of any findings of fact made in the course of the decision;
• ensuring people know what information is available, where to get it and know of their right to access it in accordance with Freedom of Information legislation and otherwise;
• assisting people, where necessary, to prepare their requests for access to information;
• providing accessible public offices and using information and communications technologies to ensure maximum access and choice in service delivery.

Finally, dealing "impartially" with people means -

• making decisions based on what is relevant in the rules and law and ignoring what is irrelevant;
• avoiding bias because of a person's gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, race, membership of the Travelling Community, language, attitude or reputation or because of who they are or who they know;
• ensuring, where a service is based on a scheme of priorities, that the scheme is open and transparent; being careful that one's prejudices are not factors in a decision;
• declining any involvement with a decision where one has a conflict of interests, a potential conflict of interests, or where there may be a perceived conflict of interests.

Appendix 3

DOMICILE AND RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DIVORCES ACT, 1986

No 24/1986

ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

Section

1. Abolition of wife's dependent domicile.

2. Domicile before commencement of Act.

3. Domicile after commencement of Act.

4. Dependent domicile of minor.

5. Recognition of foreign divorces.

6. Short title and commencement.

Number 24 of 1986

No. 24/1986: DOMICILE AND RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DIVORCES ACT, 1986

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO DOMICILE AND THE RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DIVORCES.

[2nd July, 1986]

BE IT ENACTED BY THE OIREACHTAS AS FOLLOWS:

Abolition of wife's dependent domicile.

1. - (1) From the commencement of this Act the domicile of a married woman shall be an independent domicile and shall be determined by reference to the same factors as in the case of any other person capable of having an independent domicile and, accordingly, the rule of law whereby upon marriage a woman acquires the domicile of her husband and is during the subsistence of the marriage incapable of having any other domicile is hereby abolished

Domicile after commencement of Act.

(2) This section applies to the parties to every marriage, irrespective of where and under what law the marriage takes place and irrespective of the domicile of the parties at he time of the marriage. 

Domicile before commencement of Act.

2. - The domicile that a person had at any time before the commencement of this Act shall be determined as if this Act had not been passed

3. - The domicile that a person has at any time after the commencement of this Act shall be determined as if this Act had always been in force.

Dependent domicile of minor.

4. . - (1) The domicile of a minor at any time when his father and mother are living apart shall be that of his mother if -  

( a ) the minor then has his home with her and has no home with his father, or

( b ) the minor has at any time had her domicile by virtue of paragraph ( a ) of this subsection and has not since had a home with his father.

(2) The domicile of a minor whose mother is dead shall be that which she last had before she died if at her death the minor had her domicile by virtue of subsection (1) of this section and has not since had a home with his father.

(3) This section shall not affect any existing rule of law as to the cases in which a minor's domicile is regarded as being, by dependence, that of his mother.

(4) In the application of this section to a minor who has been adopted, references to the father or mother of such minor shall be construed as references to the adoptive father or adoptive mother of such minor.

Recognition of foreign divorces.

5. (1) For the rule of law that a divorce is recognised if granted in a country where both spouses are domiciled, there is hereby substituted a rule that a divorce shall be recognised if granted in the country where either spouse is domiciled.

(2) In relation to a country which has in matters of divorce two or more systems applying in different territorial units, this section shall, without prejudice to subsection (3) of this section, have effect as if each territorial unit were a separate country.

(3) A divorce granted in any of the following jurisdictions

( a ) England and Wales,

( b ) Scotland,

( c ) Northern Ireland,

( d ) the Isle of Man,

( e ) the Channel Islands,

shall be recognised if either spouse is domiciled in any of those jurisdictions.

(4) In a case where neither spouse is domiciled in the State, a divorce shall be recognised if, although not granted in the country where either spouse is domiciled, it is recognised in the country or countries where the spouses are domiciled.

(5) This section shall apply to a divorce granted after the commencement of this Act.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect a ground on which a court may refuse to recognise a divorce, other than such a ground related to the question whether a spouse is domiciled in a particular country, or whether the divorce is recognised in a country where a spouse is domiciled.

(7) In this section—

"divorce" means divorce a vinculo matrimonii;

"domiciled" means domiciled at the date of the institution of the proceedings for divorce.

Short title and commencement.

6 - (1) This Act may be cited as the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act, 1986

(2) This Act shall come into operation on the day that is three months after the date of the passing of this Act.

 Appendix 4

Liaison Arrangements with the General Registrar's Office

1. The liaison Officer appointed by the body should be at an appropriate senior level.

2. In nominating an officer for liaison duties regard should be had to the above functions and also the following aspects

- the need for ready access to the Registrar;

- the seniority of the nominee should be such as will facilitate the processing of complaints quickly and effectively within the body, and

- the requirement to be easily accessible to the staff of the Ombudsman.

3. The Liaison Officer's main functions are:

- to act as the initial point of contact in any particular case between the Ombudsman's Office and the GRO;

- to ensure that any written or oral enquiries from the Ombudsman's Office are immediately directed to the appropriate section(s) for attention;

- to ensure that all time limits applying to requests for information, or for responses to complaints, from the Ombudsman's Office are met;

- to ensure that all relevant files and documents are readily available for inspection when requested by the Ombudsman's Office;

- to ensure that the Ombudsman's staff are provided with suitable facilities on their visits to the GRO.

Examinations/Investigations by the Ombudsman

4. The Ombudsman is empowered to fix whatever procedures he considers appropriate for conducting an examination/investigation. However, the Ombudsman will always seek to have regard to the needs of the particular body in determining procedures in any particular case

5. In the case of the preliminary examination, the first person to be contacted by the Ombudsman's Office is the Liaison Officer. He or she should, in the case of an enquiry by telephone, indicate which section of the body is involved. If possible, he or she should also supply the Ombudsman's Office with the name of a particular officer who should be in a position to respond to the enquiry, so that the Ombudsman's Office can then contact the officer involved and attempt to resolve the matter. In the case of complaints made in writing, the Liaison Officer should ensure that any letter from the Ombudsman's Office is directed to the appropriate section. The Liaison Officer has an important role to play in resolving any difficulties that may arise, particularly in facilitating the processing of that small number of cases which require immediate and urgent consideration outside of normal procedure.

In some cases the subject matter of the complaint might involve consideration of sensitive issues e.g. child abuse or potentially defamatory allegations against individuals. Such complaints will generally be forwarded directly to the Head (or, on occasion, to another senior manager) of the body for an appropriate response.-

A reply to an initial request from the Ombudsman's Office for a report on a complaint should be provided within three weeks of receipt of the request. A reply to any subsequent request for material or additional information should be provided within two weeks of receipt of the request from the Ombudsman's Office.

6. Where the Ombudsman decides to investigate a complaint formally under the Ombudsman Act, this Office will write to the Registrar enclosing a written summary of the complaint and requesting written observations on it. A copy of this correspondence will be sent to the Liaison Officer. Such a communication should be dealt with as a matter of priority and a reply should issue within 14 days of receipt. If the GRO does not accept that a complaint may validly be investigated by the Ombudsman (e.g., if it is of the view that the subject matter is not one for the Ombudsman or if it feels that the complaint is not appropriate to the body), the Head should convey the body's view in writing to the Ombudsman within seven days

 Suggested format of replies to the Ombudsman's office( Preliminary examination and Investigation )

7. Requests from the Ombudsman's Office for a report on a complaint will generally contain a summary of the case circumstances (as perceived by the complainant) and details of the action of the GRO, which is the subject of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant

The GRO's reply should:

State clearly whether it accepts the circumstances of the case as stated by the complainant. If not, the GRO should outline its account of the events giving rise to the complaint and should detail the contacts between it and the complainant in regard to those events;

Indicate whether its position in the matter, as alleged by the complainant, reflects accurately the GRO's actual position. If not, the GRO should outline its position in relation to the alleged decision or action;

State the specific basis for its decision or action by reference to the relevant guidelines, scheme, regulation or statute, as appropriate. In some cases the GRO may decide to send the Ombudsman a copy of the relevant legislation or guidelines. In any event, the Ombudsman may ask that such a copy be provided if it is not otherwise already available to him;

Indicate the reason for the GRO's decision or action in the matter.

 Production of Documents, Witnesses etc.,

8. The Ombudsman may, for the purposes of a preliminary examination or an investigation, require that any information or document or any other thing relevant to his examination or investigation should be furnished to him. Where appropriate, the Ombudsman may require any person who, in his opinion is in possession of any such information, document or other thing to attend before him for the purpose of furnishing it to him. Subject to the Ombudsman's agreement, and at the request of the person concerned, the Liaison Officer may attend any interview between the Ombudsman (or his staff) and the person concerned.

Cases involving individual Officers or Employees

9. In some cases, a complaint may be directed against an individual staff member, or the Ombudsman may find it necessary, in order to complete his examination or investigation, to scrutinise in detail the actions taken by an individual staff member. In such cases, the staff member concerned should be informed immediately by the Liaison Officer (or other senior manager to whom the complaint has been notified) that his/her actions are under scrutiny. If the staff member is not satisfied that his or her position has been adequately reflected in any reply which is sent to the Ombudsman, he/she may wish to submit his or her own comments directly to the Ombudsman. A staff member who wishes to make such a submission should be afforded all reasonable facilities, including access to the relevant files (if necessary), to assist him or her in preparing the submission. Where the Ombudsman has prepared a draft investigation report, he may send to any individual staff member, in the GRO complained of, relevant extracts from the draft and invite comments or representations in relation to the proposed draft. The time limits applicable for personal submissions to the Ombudsman will be 14 days from receipt of the enquiry from the Ombudsman.

Liaison Officer to be Kept Informed by Ombudsman's Office.

10. As the Liaison Officer is the primary channel of communication between the Ombudsman's Office and the particular public body, it is essential that the Liaison Officer be kept informed as to all developments in relations between the two bodies. The Ombudsman's Office will seek to ensure that the Liaison Officer is so informed by, for example, routing complaints through the Liaison Officer, by sending the Liaison Officer copies of all significant correspondence (e.g. re. investigation cases), and by informal contacts.

The Liaison Officer will be advised when a complaint has been finalised and what the outcome was. Generally, this will be done on a periodic (e.g. monthly) rather than on a case by case basis. In some cases, the Liaison Officer will be given additional feedback on the outcome of a complaint.

 

Appendix 5

Civil Registration Act 2004. [No. 3]

PART 8

General

Appeals.

60.—(1) Where -

(a) a registrar fails or refuses to register in the appropriate register specified in section 13 a birth, stillbirth, death or marriage or to enter in such a register one or more of the particulars required by this Act to be so entered, and furnished to him or her by a person pursuant to this Act,

or

(b) an tArd-Chláraitheoir or an authorised officer fails or refuses to comply with a request of a person under section 63, the registrar, an tArd-Chláraitheoir or the authorised officer, as the case may be, shall notify the qualified informant (within the meaning of Part 3 or 5, as may be appropriate) concerned, the parties to the marriage or the person in writing of the reasons for the failure or refusal.

(2) If a person (‘‘the appellant’’) affected by a failure or refusal by a person under subsection (1) is dissatisfied with it, he or she may appeal against it by lodging a notice of appeal in writing in a form standing approved by an tArd-Chláraitheoir or in a form to the like effect with the authority concerned, not later than 28 days from the date of his or her receipt of the notification under subsection (1), and the appeal shall be referred by the authority to such officer of the authority (not being the person in relation to whom the appeal is brought) as the authority may determine (‘‘the appeals officer’’), and the appeals officer shall determine the appeal.

(3) If an appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of an appeals officer under subsection (2), he or she may appeal against it by lodging a notice of appeal in writing in the form standing approved by an tArd-Chláraitheoir or a form to the like effect with an tArd-Chláraitheoir not more than 28 days after his or her receipt of the decision and an tArd-Chláraitheoir shall determine the appeal and, subject to subsections (6) to (8), the decision shall be final.

(4) The Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to notices of appeal under this section and the procedure to be followed on appeals under this section.

(5) In relation to an appeal under this section, the appeals officer concerned or an tArd-Chláraitheoir, as the case may be -

(a) shall notify the parties concerned in writing of his or her decision in relation to the appeal and of the reasons therefor, and

(b) may give such directions in relation to the registration or correction concerned to the registrar or authorised officer concerned as he or she considers appropriate, and any such direction shall be complied with by the person to whom it is given.

(6) An appeals officer (‘‘the officer’’) may revise a decision of another appeals officer under this section if it appears to the officer that the decision was erroneous having regard to evidence first given to the officer, or a fact first made known to the officer, since the date of the decision.

(7) An tArd-Chláraitheoir may revise a decision (including a revised decision under this subsection) of an tArd-Chláraitheoir or an appeals officer if it appears to him or her that the decision was erroneous by reason of a mistake of law or fact.

(8) A person who is dissatisfied with a decision (including a revised decision) of an tArd-Chláraitheoir may appeal against it to the High Court.

(9) A revision under subsection (6) by an appeals officer shall be deemed, for the purpose of subsections (2) to (5) and (7) of this section, to be a decision under subsection (2), and those subsections shall apply and have effect accordingly, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the revision.

(10) A decision or a revision under this section -

(a) shall be in writing and be signed by the person by whom it is made, and

(b) shall, subject to any appeal under this section, have effect in accordance with its terms.

(11) A document purporting to be a decision or a revision of an tArd-Chláraitheoir or an appeals officer shall be deemed to be such a decision or revision and to have been signed by the person pur-porting to have signed it unless the contrary is shown and shall be prima facie evidence of the decision or revision and it shall not be necessary to prove that that person was an tArd-Chláraitheoir or, as the case may be, an appeals officer.

Back to contents