The Gazette 1996

GAZETTE

I A

APRIL/MAY 1996

Drug Trafficers, Lay Members and

'Ambulance Chasers' - All Grist to the

Media Mill

In a high profile month for the

solicitors' profession in the media,

three main subjects dominated namely

(1) The Society's opposition to the

seven day detention proposals in the

Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking)

Bill, (2) the publication of Second

Report of the Lay Members of the

; Registrar's Committee and (3) a

| medical profession attack on solicitors

alleging "qmbulance chasing" and

improper advertising to promote

medical negligence claims.

1. Opposition to Seven Day

Detention

The Society's opposition in principle

to the seven day detention provisions

of the Criminal Justice (Drug

Trafficking) Bill 1996, objection on

the basis that these detention

| provisions constituted a threat to the

civil liberties of all citizens, was

widely reported in the national media.

| The terms of the Society's press

release were quoted extensively in all

national newspapers. Indeed, when the

Viewpoint in the March

Gazette,

I containing broadly speaking the same

material as the original press release,

was subsequently published, both the

Irish Times

and

Irish Independent

again reported the matter fully.

The Chairman of the Society's

Criminal Law Committee,

James

MacGuill,

was interviewed on the

Morning Ireland RTE 1

radio

programme. He emphasised that, even

though the Society was opposed in

principle to citizens being liable to

detention without charge for up to

seven days for the purposes of

interrogation, solicitors fully

understood the scourge of drug-related

crime and would support any

reasonable Government proposal to

help deal with it. "To put everything

in context, when the Minister

announced her campaign last year,

there were seventeen proposals made.

Solicitors had no difficulties with

sixteen of those proposals. We have

'VjPJr

David Hanley, the grand inquisitor on

RTE Radio 7's Morning Ireland

programme,

recently interviewed on separate occasions

the Law Society's James MacGuill

and Ken Murphy.

first hand experience on a daily basis

of the harm that drug barons are

causing, both to the victims of crime

and the drug addicts who are used as

tools by the barons, so we are perhaps

more hostile than anyone to drug

barons and anxious to see that they are

put down. However, the particular

proposal for seven days detention

without charge is one which would be

generally unacceptable throughout the

world", he said.

Although the Society's position was

reported with respect in most

newspapers,

James MacGuill

was not

spared a tabloid backlash in the form

of the 'John Donlon on Monday'

column in the

Daily Star

on 18 March

1996 which contained the following.

"People are fed up with this kind of

claptrap from the Law Society. It is

time Mr. MacGuill and his ilk learned

a few home truths.

"Drug dealers are scum. They are

polluting the country with the stuff

they peddle, and they have a vested

interest in turning young people into

drug addicts.

"Most people questioned in relation to

drug pushing are guilty and if a few

innocent souls have to be held for

seven days in the relative luxury of

prison, so be it."

It is to be expected that the coverage,

both supportive and hostile, of the

Society's position on this subject will

continue as the Bill makes further

progress through the Oireachtas.

2. Report of the Lay Members of

the Registrar's Committee

The Society forwarded the second

report of the lay members of the

Registrar's Committee to the Minister

for Justice on 29 March 1996.

Although under no obligation to do

so, two weeks later the Society made

copies of the report available to the

media.

The Society chose to do this for the

same reason that it voluntarily

appointed lay members to its

Registrar's Committee in the first

place. It believes in transparency and

has absolutely nothing to hide in

relation to its complaints handling

procedure which can only have public

confidence in it strengthened when

independent lay members favourably

report, as they did this year, that the

Society operates "a fair and

transparent complaints procedure".

The lay members also noted progress

during the past year reflecting "the

commitment of the Law Society to

pursue complaints in a fair and

balanced way and to develop and

implement improvements in the

procedures to achieve that".

An overwhelmingly positive lay

members' report such as this one does

not make very exciting news and so it

was inevitable that the reporting

would tend to focus on the few and

101