The Gazette 1977

GAZ T I I H

JANUARY /FEBRUARY IV 77

I

(ci o K

jj l.

-1»

. M . «

4 |

called upon to testify, he should make it clear to the Trial Judge his reluctance to disclose information on the" grounds that he has received it in confidence. He should, however, also 'make clear his willingness to abide by any direction which the judge may give to him. It would appear to me that there would only be one circumstance in which a marriage counsellor may avoid having to disclose confidential information and that would be in the case of his having engaged in "without prejudice" negotiations. Even then his position might be difficult The Committee's view is that the following categories of persons are, in view of Counsel's Opinion, not protected by privilege in the same way as solicitors or clergymen, namely:- 1. Social workers. 2. Marriage guidance counsellors. 3. Advisers at F.L.A.C. centres, including attending solicitors. 4. Welfare officers. The Committee recommends that representations be made to the Department of Justice for the introduction of legislation which would afford protection to those persons enumerated above who appear to be at risk as the law stands at present where the Guardianship of Infants Act is concerned. The four categories which we have mentioned are not -necessarily exhaustive. On the other hand, the Committee feels that privilege should be limited to selected categories of persons. If privilege was to apply to too many categories, serious abuse could arise. Dated this 15th day of September 1976 THE PRESIDENT'S DIARY OF ENGAGEMENTS 27/1/1977 - Attended Annual General Meeting of Mayo Solicitors' Bar Association at BreafTy House Hotel, Castlebar accompanied by Gerald Hickey, Chairman Finance Committee. 28/1/1977 - Presided at Solicitors' Apprentices Debating Society of Ireland Inaugural Meeting at Four Courts and spoke to a paper, seconded a resolution proposed by Senator Mary Robinson. 31/1/1977 - Was received by the Chief Justice in his Chambers. 3/2/1977 — Paid a courtesy visit to the President of the High Court. 3/2/1977 - Attended meeting of Wicklow Solicitors' Bar Association at La Touche Hotel, Greystones. 4/2/1977 — Dined at King's Inns at invitation of the Honorable Society of King's Inns. 12/2/1977 — Attended Southern Law Association's Annual Dinner in the Metropole Hotel, Cork. 15/2/1977 - Attended a dinner hosted by An Taoiseach in honour of the Prime Minister of Portugal at Iveagh House, Dublin. 16/2/1977 - Attended meeting of West Cork Bar Association in Skibbereen. DAVID R. PIGOT WALTER BEATTY

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT 1964 In the first instance the designated Committee decided to furnish a Case to obtain Counsel's opinion on questions of privilege arising under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. This opinion was helpful and Counsel specifically dealt With the five questions in the Case as follows :- Q- (1): Does the Guardianship of Infants Act. 1964, mean that it is incumbent upon a solicitor, marriage guidance counsellor or clergyman to divulge adverse information to the Court regarding a spouse, client or confidant in the interests of the infant? A. In my view a soliicitor is under no such obligation. The client, himself, however, may be under such an obligation. Likewise, it would not appear that a clergyman is under any such obligation. A marriage guidance counsellor may, however, be obliged to disclose such information if called upon to give evidence. Q* (2): If so, how can the confidential nature of the communication from the spouse and the privileged position of the solicitor or confidant be protected? A- If my reply to question 1 is correct this question does not arise. V. (3): Should the privilege of the solicitor or confidant be merely uncompellable, which would mean that a solicitor or confidant would be at liberty under the law to break his client's confidcnce in the interests of the infant? A. In my view, a solicitor or clergyman who had Professional privilege would be uncompellable. He Would also be under professional obligation not to disclose confidential information without the permission of his client. A marriage guidance counsellor, on the other hand, would be a compellable witness. I do not see, however, that he would except in foe rarest of cases — be under any obligation to come Before the Court and disclose to the Court ^formation damaging to his client which he had received in confidence. V. (4): Has .the solicitor or confidant the duty to have a case re-opened in the light of after-acquired information? In my opinion no. This appears to me to be essentially work appropriate to a welfare officer. V. (5): As the law stands, is a solicitor or confidant entitled to refuse to testify concerning the spouse's confidence? If not, does such a person face the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment for contempt of Court? In my view, a solicitor may —and, indeed, must — refuse to disclose professional confidences received 'torn his client unless he has his client's permission. A c ' e rgyman would appear to be in a similar position. A 16 niarr ^ a Be counsellor has no similar privilege. If he is »