43 / 294
Professional Independence
The man in the street going about his business in a
democratic regime in times of peace takes his consti-
tutional rights for granted—that is if he thinks of them
at all. Two events during the past few weeks throw a
vivid light on the role of our profession in standing
between the executive and the citizen and their rele-
vance in present conditions deserves more emphasis than
they have publicly received. On February 10 a meeting
of 400 lawyers was held in Belfast under the chairman-
ship of the President of the Law Society of Northern
Ireland to consider resolutions protesting against the
denial of proper facilities to solicitors to interview clients
suffering internment, or properly speaking the rights of
the internees to proper facilities for professional assis-
tance and advice. The question at issue is the rights of
the public not merely the claim of the profession. As the
total number of practising solicitors in the North does
not exceed 600 it may be taken that the meeting was a
cross-section of the profession and that the 400 present
were probably roughly representative of divergent pro-
fessional opinion on policital issues. The decision was
unanimous in opposing the present attitude of the
authorities towards the rights of prisoners and detainees
and also commenting on certain other matters not
strictly within the legal sphere, such as facilities for
regular medical inspection of internees. A full report
of the meeting is printed on page 43.
The second highlight of the month was the decision
of the County Court judge at Armagh in
Moore v
Shillington and the Ministry of Defence
in which
damages were awarded to the plaintiff, an ex-detainee,
for illegal detention and illegal treatment while under
detention. The judge rejected the evidence tendered
for the defendants on questions of fact and criticised the
attitude of army medical doctors. It has been com-
mented that his decision undermines the whole pro-
cedure of internment and interrogation of internees as
at present conducted. This cannot have been a welcome
decision for Stormont and is, of course, open to appeal
to the High Court.
Whatever criticism may be justly expressed on Stor-
mont and the Northern Ireland regime, the judiciary
and the legal profession there are completely indepen-
dent of the executive power. The profession, the rules of
Court, the regulation of costs and ancillary matters are
controlled and prescribed solely by judicial committees
in which the Lord Chief Justice exercises a predominant
role. The Ministry of Home Affairs has no function in
the administration of justice or control of the legal
profession. An independent judiciary cannot function
without an independent profession and to the extent to
which the executive establishes control of the profession
the independent functions of the judiciary and the
freedom of the individual is likewise curtailed.
What has happened in the North is not without its
lesson for the Republic. The Government has intro-
duced in Dail Eireann the Prices (Amendment) Bill,
1971, which if passed in its present form will signifi-
cantly reduce the independence of the legal profession
by referring its entire remuneration to a committee
which will be directly responsible to the Minister for
Justice. The Minister will thus secure the power to con-
trol the profession through its remuneration. The powers
sought in the Bill are without precedent in Northern
Ireland, England or Scotland.
The legal profession unlike any other is directly con-
cerned with the rights of individual citizens. In every
State the greatest danger to the rights of the small man
comes from the State and big business interests. It is a
necessary corollary that the profession should be under
the control of the judiciary not the State. In the nature
of its duties it cannot be compared with any other
profession or occupation. The Society in 1969 made
proposals for the establishment of a Central Costs
Committee broadly representative of the judiciary, the
profession, the public and financial experts and respon-
sible directly to the Oireachtas. It would regulate fees
without recourse to the State but its orders would be
subject to annulment in either House of the Oireachtas.
The sole question in issue between the profession and
the Government is that while the Government wish to
hand control of fees to the Minister for Justice the
profession wish to retain judicial control responsible to
the Oireachtas.
The examples quoted above from experience in
Northern Irelnd are directly relevant in this connection.
It is now more than ever important that the principle
of independent judicial control of the solicitors' profes-
sion should be firmly upheld.
40