Parking offenders issued with tickets more than six months ago will have to wait until next year before they discover if they will have to pay their fines.

At a session of parking court yesterday afternoon Senior Magistrate Will Francis adjourned all cases after confirming that he had been approached by representatives of the Attorney General.

The dispute over the payment of ancient parking fines erupted two weeks ago when one defendant pointed out that, because his ticket had been issued more than six months previously, he should not have to pay it.

After making checks the presiding Magistrate at the time, Edward King, accepted that he did not have jurisdiction to hear any of the cases.

The scenario was repeated last week and erupted into an ugly row between prosecutors and Mr. King when he again refused to hear any parking fine cases.

But yesterday Mr. Francis told about 20 defendants issued with parking tickets at the end of last year that he had no option but to adjourn.

"As you all know there has been a lot of publicity about processes in this court and, as a result of those processes appeal procedures have been taken,'' Mr. King said. "As a result of those appeal procedures I have been approached by people on behalf of the Attorney General and what I have been asked to do is adjourn all your cases until January 13.'' A decision on whether or not offenders are liable for fines will now be made by the Attorney General before the next parking court on January 13.

The row centres on a section of law that states that a summons must be issued within six months of the start of legal proceedings.

But lawyers on both sides are disputing when legal proceedings in relation to parking matters actually begin. The introduction of a new computer system in the courts means that a backlog of parking ticket summonses has now built up and summonses are now only being produced for tickets issued last December.

After making his decision Mr. Francis then offered each defendant the option of settling their fines, all of which are now nearly 11 months old, immediately by pleading guilty. Only two out of more than 20 defendants opted to pay up.

Mr. Francis also disclosed that he could see no reason why his court could not preside over the cases. "In my view the court has the information and I have not been convinced that I don't have the jurisdiction,'' he said.