The Gazette 1996

GAZETTE

MARCH 1996

any purported fees incurred in

connection with the submissions which

were submitted to this court which do

not bear the hallmark of propriety

having regard to the jurisprudence of

this court and which is required in the

submissions to the court which should

deal in an objective manner with regard

to the facts of the case and the issues of

law involved and any authorities which

would be of assistance to the court in the

determination of this issue. Submissions

should not be made in the terms that

they were made in this case consisting of

contemptuous language and unfounded

allegations against not only the parties

but to a very considerable extent,

whether intended or not, the learned trial

judge and the manner in which she

conducted the case.

Comment

As is clear from the above, the

Supreme Court identified the

question of costs as the basic issue in

the appeal. In the High Court, all

costs have been awarded against the

plaintiffs. The Supreme Court found

that the plaintiffs were entitled to

costs on a limited basis, that is to say,

the costs attributable to eight days of

the seventeen-day High Court

hearing and somewhat less than half

of the costs of the Supreme Court

appeal.

The Supreme Court expressly upheld

the High Court findings

that allegations made on behalf of the

plaintiffs against the integrity and

bona fides

of the Law Society were

completely unfounded. The Supreme

Court criticised aspects of the

plaintiffs' case including the

unnecessary length of time that it

took in the High Court, the

unfounded allegations of bad faith

against the Law Society and the

propriety of the written submissions

to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Cou r t 's decision did not

alter in any way the main

consequence of the High Court

decision, namely that all persons

henceforth seeking admission to the

Society's Law School must sit and

pass the eight law subject entrance

examination (the 'FE-1').

•

VIEWPOINT

Continued from page 53

to introduce this scheme in respect of

twelve hour detention has not been

remedied in this Bill which proposes to

introduce 168 hour detention.

• The Bill does not introduce the

safeguard of audio-visual recording of

interrogations during the 168 hour

period or the other recommendations

of the Martin Report.

• No Garda Stations have adequate

facilities for the humanitarian

detention of persons for periods of

168 hours.

• The Bill does not require the Chief

Superintendent to state the reasons for

the initial detention in writing.

• There is no provision for legally aided

representation of persons without

means who are before the Court prior

to charge.

• Preliminary proceedings in the Courts

could be reported in the media. There

is a consequential risk that potential

jurors could be prejudiced against an

accused.

The Minister for Justice is under

intense public pressure to be seen to

'do something' about the alarming

increase in drug-related crime. The

Law Society supports 16 of the 17

measures set out in the programme she

unveiled last July. The detention

provisions of the Criminal Justice

(Drug Trafficking) Bill 1996 have not

been justified by the Minister,

however, and even at this late stage

should be withdrawn.

E = 1 p | o | p |

P R I N T I N G L l

Tel: 8725077 Fax:

FREE

COMPL IMENT SLIPS

Order letterheads for your

company and get the same

amount of compliment slips

free!

íst ( lass Service to the l.egal Profession.

'Come to Cork' -

Conference 1996

By now you will have received your

brochure and booking form for the

Annual Conference. Do consider

attending this year. This year's new-look

conference has something for everyone.

You will see from the programme that

the conference has a distinct

international flavour, with Cajun and

French gourmet cuisine, a workshop on

Eastern European opportunities and the

option of attending the acclaimed music

and dance extravaganza,

Riverdance.

And all at the unbelievably low cost of

£220 per person.

So, complete the booking form and

return it to

Mary Kinsella

at the Law

Society as soon as possible. It is also

possible to attend the conference on a

non-residential basis - contact

Mary

for

further information.

REPORT OF COUNCIL

MEETING HELD ON 8 MARCH

(Continuedfrom page 61)

Society rulings and advice on

what constitutes either

compliance or non-compliance

with Section 68 in specific

circumstances;

(b) to devise and implement a Law

Society campaign to promote

compliance with Section 68.

Compliance should be promoted

not merely on the basis that

solicitors should always seek to

comply with the law hut also on

the basis that compliance is

genuinely in the best interests of

solicitors' relationships with

their individual clients.

It was agreed that it was necessary to

establish this committee and that it

should be chaired by

Terence McCrann.

11. Other business

Council approved certain technical

resolutions in relation to compulsory

professional indemnity insurance.

Council also approved the nomination

of Mr.

Noel McMahon,

Chief Executive

of the Advertising Standards Authority

of Ireland, as a lay member of the

Registrar's Committee.

•

Ken Murphy