THOUSANDS of magistrates court cases were put at risk following a swearing-in bungle in which almost 30 judicial officers took the wrong oath, potentially rendering their appointments invalid.

State Parliament yesterday rushed through urgent legislation to validate the oaths and affirmations taken by about eight magistrates, 15 acting magistrates and six acting registrars after it was revealed they read from a script that had been repealed.

Another acting magistrate is understood not to have taken an oath or affirmation to validate their appointment.

The error is understood to have affected every magistrates court judicial officer sworn in between April 12, 2013, and April 24 this year.

The Courier-Mail understands it was picked up by Chief Magistrate Ray Rinaudo as he prepared to swear in two new acting magistrates.

Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath was alerted to the error late last week and sought Crown Law advice before preparing legislation to fix the bungle and protect the validity of the appointments of the judicial officers and the judgments they had made.

She told the House while the bungle did not mean the decisions handed down by the affected judicial officers were incorrect, there was “a serious risk of expensive and inconvenient disruption for parties who have ordered their affairs based on those judgments and orders”. The effect of taking and subscribing the incorrect oath or affirmation, or not taking and subscribing an oath or affirmation at all, is that ... those judicial officers would be prevented from exercising any of their powers and functions as a magistrate, acting magistrate or acting judicial registrar, as the case may be,” Ms D’Ath told the House.

“Further, the oversight potentially affects the continuing validity of the appointment of the relevant judicial officers.”

The judicial officers were required to swear a new oath or affirmation introduced on April 12, 2013, which contained several new words and a new paragraph requiring them to declare they will “do equal justice to all persons and discharge the duties and responsibilities of the office according to law to the best of my knowledge and ability without fear, favour or affection”.

Instead, the officers continued to read from a script introduced in 2003.

The swearing-in process is understood to have been officiated by a series of senior Magistrates Court officers during the two-year period the wrong oath was being used.

Ms D’Ath described the bungle as an administrative oversight.

“The Government is of the view that the administration of the incorrect form of oath or affirmation or failing to take an oath has no affect on the legal correctness of judgments or orders made by the judicial officers,” Ms D’Ath said.

“The amendments in the Bill are necessary to address administrative oversights.”