The Gazette 1976

GAZETTE

JUNE/JULY 1976

institute a Law Faculty with full-time professors and lecturers. The Hon. Mr. Justice Kenny proposed, and Mr. John F. Buckley, Chairman of the Education Committee seconded the Resolution that the Auditor deserved the best thanks of the Society for his address, and that it be printed at the expense of the Society. This resolution was carried unanimously. The script of these speeches is not available. Mr. Diarmuid Sheridan, S.C., proposed the resolu- tion "That the Solicitors' Apprentices' Debating Society of Ireland is worthy of the support of Solicitors' Apprentices, of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland and of the Solicitors' profession". Mr. Diarmuid P. Sheridan, S.C., in moving this reso- lution said that he wished to make it quite clear that this was, in no way, a family affair. I bear no relation- ship, as far as I know, to the Auditor, said Mr. Sheridan. It was a paper obviously carefully assembled and designed to set out in relief the many problems of legal education. We are all very deeply conscious, nowadays, of the increasing numbers of those desiring to enter the pro- fessions either through the Universities or other Degree Bodies. This problem appears to me to be so acute that a certain type of individual gifted in his own special way such as a lawyer may find the door to his profession barred and bolted by reason of his failure to obtain the necessary number of points in the Leaving Certificate examination. I would like to make a plea for the late developer who may not have found such subjects as Algebra, Georgaphy and Biology greatly to his liking but who has, nevertheless, a passion for justice. Courage essential for the Lawyer I wonder how we got on at all in the old days when any student, except in rare and exceptional circum- stances, was entitled to embrace a profession by the expedient of either passing the Leaving Certificate examination or achieving a Pass in the appropriate Preliminary Examination for his chosen profession. It does not necessarily follow that a boy or girl equipped with a superfluity of points will make the best Lawyer. In my view, the first great attribute of the Lawyer is courage. It may need courage, first of all, to get through the examination with the limited amount of intellectual powers bestowed by the Almighty on the particular student, but, having got there, I feel that this same courage will equip the Lawyer with a special attribute of inestimable value to society. Tt seems to me that, this courage inspires a high degree of integrity. It is essential for the Lawyer, occasionally at least, to embrace the unpopular cause. The motivating factor of a Lawyer is not necessarily confined to questions of money, but the measure of our freedom is essentially the right and obligation, in appropriate circumstances, for the Lawyer to arrive in Court and to be able, fearlessly, to say "thou shalt not" to Government Departments, Local Bodies or any other powerful organs, acting under cir- cumstances whereby injustice is being caused to the Lawyer's client. This is an essential element in a free Society. Rules for Government of Prisons These comments, I think, naturally lead me to my second point and this concerns Statutory Instrument 30 of 1976 known as "The Rules for the Government of

Prisons 1976". In the Explanatory Note which does not purport to be a legal interpretation, it is stated that these Rules empower the Minister to direct the Governor of a Prison to exclude for reasons of security, a person, including a Prisoner's Legal Adviser, from the Prison, or to admit a person only on such conditions or in such circumstances as the Minister may direct. I have read these Rules and after my twenty-three years as a practis- ing Lawyer I never thought I would see the day when I would be included in the brackets at the end of Clause 2 of the Rules which read "including a Prisoner's Legal Adviser". I am well aware that because we live in troubled times there is a necessity for State security, but, I feel that this denial, formalised in these Rules, is a denial of a basic funda- mental human right enjoye'd by a person in custody in Prison to consult with a Legal Adviser of his own choosing in respect of the Charges brought against him. Whilst it may be contended that these Rules are designed to cater for a minute section of our Legal Profession, there is nothing to stop a Civil Servant including my name or the name of the President of the Incorporated Law Society or anyone else in a list pre- pared by him and with his pen to deny our services to a person in custody in a Prison. It will be argued that powers contained in Clause 3 of the Regulations form a safeguard but this provision, as I read it, merely means that the entire membership of the Legal Pro- fession cannot be included in the list and I feel it is quite wrong for the reasonable choice of Legal Adviser by a Prisoner in custody to be subject to the sanction or limitation of the Minister for Justice or his Agents. Members of the Legal Profession, in dealing with Prisoners in custody, are under a duty, both under the Law and under the Rules of their Profession, not to deal in or in any way be party to any subversive activities under the cloak of Legal Advice and Consul- tation. This is a matter of trust and if the trust is broken by any member of the Legal Profession, be he Barrister or Solicitor, such an individual should be visited by the full rigours of the Law and punished accordingly and, in addition, he should be also made liable to the maximum penalties prescribed by the Governing Bodies of his Profession by reason of such breach of trust. Defence of legal jargon The Auditor in his paper referred to the use by Lawyers of a great deal of technical jargon. May I make some defence in relation to this. We are con- stantly subjected to the rising tide of administrative law made possible by simple Statutes giving the Minister power to make Regulations of every shape and form. This leads to inadequate legislation in the sense that the policy of the Act is not always clearly stated with clarity and completeness. There is always a danger in oversimplification as witness the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act of 1934 which was supposed to be a measure of classic simplicity and one which even the most unlettered could readily understand. Years later learned articles were still being written and learned Judgments still delivered upon such topics as what precisely was meant by "An accident arising out of and in the course of employment". The comprehensive Statutes of the last century have stood the test of time much better, even although, the expansiveness of the Draftsman could, in some churlish quarters, be reckoned as creating jargon. The President then thanked the Auditor for his address, and the speakers. The Meeting then termin- ated.

106