a)              Remove solicitor strikers from the Legal Aid practitioners’ panel; and/or

b)             Refer solicitor strikers to the disciplinary processes of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal;

(Barristers are chosen by solicitors; consequently they, to partake in the strike, need only have a private conversation with their solicitor benefactors advising them that they are not available for work. The Minister would have his work cut out for him to access the content of such conversations, if not their effect).

He will not choose b); the Tribunal has expressed disappointment that the Minister has tabled proposals to replace them when they have, to paraphrase it, an unblemished record of doing their work.

He may not react at all. His Press Office, HERE, expresses the peculiar language adopted for such happenings;

“The threatened withdrawal of services seems to apply only to defence lawyers operating under the criminal legal aid scheme…”

Well, yes.

They were the very people whose incomes were being cut by the Minister and who made the complaint to him. His response was to cut the incomes of other lawyers, as if the substance of the initial complaint was a demand for absolute fairness, even in misery.

Those other lawyers are barristers briefed by the State. No solicitor on the Legal Aid panel works for the State in prosecution work and vice versa. State prosecutions are taken by various solicitors appointed for that purpose in, effectively, County districts around the country. For good and obvious reasons they do not offer services to the general public for defence work.

The Minister says:

“The Minister has invited the Criminal Law Practitioners Organisation to furnish to him their proposals for reducing the cost of Criminal Legal Aid whilst continuing to ensure that the rights of alleged offenders are being protected.”

This is provocative. The Minister means by this:

“The Minister has invited the Criminal Law Practitioners Organisation to furnish to him their proposals for reducing the [fees paid to criminal law practitioners…]”

The Minister’s mode of expression is a “first strike” in a blame game where the Minister’s antagonists are weak and disparate and their work is obscure to most citizens.

Consequently, the proposal to introduce “the paperless office” to Norwich prosecutors is looked at with a jaundiced eye.

That same eye, being in private practice, is distantly threatened with strain; if the prosecutor has a tablet, the defence counsel must have one also.

The interesting issue is, however, not the tablet; it is the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s mind-set. Does it matter a fig (assuming it to be true) that some money will be saved by the use of tablets? Many administrators would be able to find other ways of saving money in the conduct of criminal trials. Why should they not be given their wish?

A criminal trial is, supposedly, not about the convenience of the prosecution; it is, reputedly, a search for justice.

When it is not that, it is a fraud. It is a fraud because its procedural approach is deceitful. The elaborate procedure of a criminal trial is intended to vindicate the State as it punishes a human being. If the State has some other agenda it is the State that should be in the dock, not the accused.

What kind of impermissible agenda could a State have?

Well, levying terror on its own military forces is one.

Needless to say, there will be no evidence of impermissible agendas in prosecutors’ tablets. To find that kind of stuff, defence counsel must walk, as it were, behind the false wall of the prosecutor’s case and find the real evidence. That will become more difficult without ready access, without quibble, to all the prosecution material, particularly the stuff the prosecutor deems not relevant or necessary to his/her case.

If that is what the defence requires and needs, there will develop a new stage in a paperless prosecution; the inspection in situ of prosecution paper. We know how important it is to be skeptical of conventional wisdom; now we must be skeptical of prosecutorial WYSIWUG.*

* “What You See Is What You Get”, Apple’s reprobation of Microsoft’s interface (before Windows).

So wrote John Kenneth Galbraith in 1958 when he coined the phrase “conventional wisdom”.

The idea is so good that he was not the first to recognize the truth in the phrase; that much of what passes for ideas is real only because it has been agreed to be so.

If that truth were to be again forgotten a criminal legal aid lawyer would be a prime candidate to re-discover its force. As a solicitor on the Legal Aid panel I feel the power of dislocation it engenders when I read HERE that some of my predecessors have had to represent pigs, goats, rats and other animals.

“All over Europe, throughout the middle-ages and right on into the 19th century, animals were, as it turns out, tried for human crimes. Dogs, pigs, cows, rats and even flies and caterpillars were arraigned in court on charges ranging from murder to obscenity. The trials were conducted with full ceremony: evidence was heard on both sides, witnesses were called, and in many cases the accused animal was granted a form of legal aid — a lawyer being appointed at the tax-payer’s expense to conduct the animal’s defence. …”

A lay person might (on reflection) wonder (or not, on reflection) how the lawyer is to take instructions from the client, a phrase and concept itself wonderfully conventional. We lawyers don’t need the client to tell us what we are to do; we tell the client what the client needs and proceed to do that. So, if a pig is facing a murder rap we undermine the evidence and so on, depending on the character of the charge, not the character of the accused.

Nobody knew this better than Socrates. He lived an unconventional life and the first charge against him read;

“Socrates does wrong and is too concerned with enquiring about what’s in the heavens and below the earth and to make the weaker argument appear the stronger and to teach these same things to others”

This was an accusation that he, Socrates, was a non-conformist, something he consciously sought to be. In effect, it accused him of being himself.

There are some charges you just can’t beat; being a pig must be one.

Often, it is similar to chewing on sawdust. But not last night. The writer attended a seminar on firearms and fingerprints.

Fingerprints were a Victorian “discovery”. They are not really appreciated by Irish judges, who tend to think of them as assimilated with witness identification which is still treasured despite the formal warnings judges are obliged to deliver to juries about the dangers of visual identification.

In fact fingerprints are material for heavy duty intellectual analysis. See Henry Templeman HERE for a glance at the subject.

Templeman quotes a comment on the results of a proficiency test applied to156 fingerprint experts;

“’Errors of this magnitude within a discipline singularly admired and respected for its touted absolute certainty as an identification process have produced chilling and mind- numbing realities. Thirty-four participants, an incredible 22% of those involved, substituted presumed but false certainty for truth. By any measure, this represents a profile of practice that is unacceptable and thus demands positive action by the entire community.”

In fact, there is more art than science in fingerprinting. Zealotry is a danger; we do not want Dodge City cleaned up at all costs. No enthusiastic prosecutors, please.

In or about 1986, on a tip-off, police in California flew an aeroplane over the backyard of Mr. Ciraolo. They perceived a crop of marijuana in his yard, got a search warrant and found 73 plants. The California court of appeals applied Katz v United States 389 U.S. 347 and ruled the flight an unauthorised search and a breach of Mr. Ciraolo’s expectation of privacy. The US Supreme court found against Ciraolo on the grounds that he had lost his right of expectation of privacy because he had exposed the back yard to the occupants of the numerous aeroplanes flying over his house. The court disregarded the fact that those occupants were passengers in domestic flights (at great heights, presumably) whose chances of inspecting and recognising marijuana in the backyard were nil.

One wonders what the US court will say when the cops buy and deploy drone aircraft and thermal imaging technology.

Then there are those special places like Birr, County Offaly where, recently, the 41^st Irish Hot-Air Balloon competition took place.  Will the Garda Síochána buy a balloon or opt for a drone?

The Gardaí have had a history of their own difficulties with search warrants and the like. See HERE for the latest episode on that front and for a very good analysis of the case law relating to that history.

Public speeches or comments by politicians should always be seen in that context.

One is reminded of the history of waste disposal and control in Ireland. Local Authorities were the regulators of waste disposal and were the greatest offenders; their sewage, alone, was a source of great damage and offence.

These are my thoughts as I note that, shortly, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (“MJELR”) will disclose his plans for conformity with the IMF/EU “reforms” of the legal professions.

As I understand it, the professed intention is to eliminate wasteful costs.

To that end, the Minister could do worse than have a word with his fellow EU Ministers for Justice about extradition.

Surely the provisions of Section 11 of the Extradition (European Union Conventions) Act 2001 need adjusting?

They are too low.

Many offenders in Ireland, guilty of an offence falling within the terms (but not the application) of Section 11 would qualify for the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907.

What the EU states have done is this; they have resolved to spend money without reserve in pursuit of EU citizens who have collided with State power. They are saying there will be no opportunity to escape the State, regardless of the triviality of the offence.

Who pays for this? Well, in Ireland, the taxpayers pay and the MJELR spends that money enthusiastically.

When Ireland receives a warrant from another EU state for the extradition of a person a very costly process is commenced. This should happen in appropriate cases, but not in inappropriate cases.

It can, and does happen, that extradition requests are made in cases where the “absconder” received a suspended sentence.

Does the MJELR keep a horse? Does he not notice he needs to clean his stables?

In fact most criminal prosecutions are brought by members of the Garda Siochana in the name of the DPP.

Before the 1974 act the prosecutor was the Attorney General. Consequently, it was, before 1974, a social fiction imposed on the nation that the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute was taken by the Attorney General without regard for the fact that he was a highly politicised figure, held his post at the behest of the Taoiseach and was the confidante and counsellor of the Governement and its members.

The DPP has no role in the investigation of crime. He (or she) receives a file from the Garda Siochana. The file contains the available evidence. The DPP decides, on the evidence in the file, to prosecute or not to prosecute and whether to prosecute on indictment (in the Circuit Court or Central Criminal Court) or summarily (in the District Court).

Prosecutions on indictment are “contracted out” to barristers in private practice. It is a valuable connection to be on the panel for work coming from the DPP.

Ideally, such a person would have considerable experience in criminal cases. That experience can be gained only when working in defence of prosecutions (otherwise the prosecution of offences would be placed in the hands of inexperienced practitioners and that, it is submitted, ought not to happen).

Experience, it is hoped, should dampen zealotry. It is not the job of a prosecutor to “win”, but to facilitate in doing justice. The steady presentation of the available evidence is the job of the prosecutor. That evidence must be such that there is left no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.

In fact, the DPP has issued “Guidelines for Prosecutors”. stressing the need for the prosecutor to act honestly, fairly, impartially and objectively. The Guidelines enjoin the prosecutors to;

“(k) carry out their functions honestly, fairly,
consistently impartially and objectively
and without fear, favour, bias or prejudice;”

This is fine in theory, but the decision to prosecute is often made in circumstances where the complainant, sometimes inevitably, has a private grudge against the accused. It is, in such circumstances more important than ever that the circumstances in which the prosecutor got his or her experience qualifying him or her to get work from the State, should have no bearing on whether the private grudge can be advanced at the expense of the public purse and at no risk to the complainant and great risk to the accused.

The job of an auditor is to ascertain if the accounts provide “a true and fair view” of the company’s financial position. However, the auditor’s judgment on this is not, and should not be, absolute. After all, the auditor should not be the equivalent of an insurer where he pays if there is something wrong and loss accrues. In modern times the profession, as always, determines the liability of auditors. The profession has issued guidelines for auditors. Those guidelines now impose a higher standard on auditors than Re Kingston.

These guidelines were quoted in Moore Stephens (a firm) v Stone & Rolls Limited (in liquidation) [2009] UKHL 39

”Auditing Standard SAS 110 (issued January 1995) deals with fraud and error. It contains statements of auditing standards (SAS) and explanatory text in numbered paragraphs. SAS 110.1 states: “Auditors should plan and perform their audit procedures and evaluate and report the results thereof, recognising that fraud or error may materially affect the financial statements”. SAS 110.10 (para. 50) states that, on becoming aware of a suspected or actual instance of fraud, auditors
“should (a) consider whether the matter may be one that ought to be reported to a proper authority in the public interest; and where this is the case (b) except in the circumstances covered in SAS 110.12, discuss the matter with the board of directors, including any audit committee”.
SAS 110.12 (para. 52) provides that
“When a suspected or actual instance of fraud casts doubt on the integrity of the directors auditors should make a report direct to a proper authority in the public interest without delay and without informing the directors in advance.” “

The fact that the auditors in that case escaped by the skin of their teeth shows life is going to get difficult for the profession.

This blog has referred (July 2007) to one of them.

That post referred to the fact that the UK (and Ireland, consequently) formerly had that very remedy and allowed it to fall into disuse.

It is now proposed to revive it in the UK.

Another good idea that would have stopped Charles J. Haughey, deceased leader of Fianna Fail, from getting inexplicably rich, is to be found in the laws of many former UK dominions.

Hong Kong’s version is found in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. It provides;

“10. (1) Any person who, being or having been a prescribed
officer –

(a) maintains a standard of living above that which is
commensurate with his present or past official
emoluments; or

(b) is in control of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his present or past official
emoluments,

shall, unless he gives a satisfactory explanation to the court as to
how he was able to maintain such a standard of living or how such
pecuniary resources or property came under his control, be guilty of
an offence.”

(The definition of “prescribed officer” is critical; we are not after the dog-catcher).

A False Claim Act is, however, the superior remedy; it applies to private corruption and to public corruption; it promotes the disclosure of wrongdoing by witnesses; it acts as a disincentive to crime (by making it dangerous to undertake).

It is not helped by the fact that the law relating to corruption in Ireland is controversial. It is strewn over several pieces of legislation and has been criticized on a regular basis by the OECD expressly for that reason.

Two weapons in the State’s armoury were brought in by Britain (still in force in the UK), (The Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916) and are old. They are also inadequate. (The 1916 Act does not apply to employers: who, but employers, will fund the bribery?).

Ireland ratified the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions but, like many others, has dragged its heels in actually acting on its obligations.

In 2008 the OECD reported:

“In particular, the Working Group is disappointed that Ireland did not seize the opportunity of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008 to act upon the Phase 2 recommendations to consolidate and harmonise the two separate foreign bribery offences in the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001 and the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. The Group therefore recommends, as it did in 2007, that Ireland act on this issue as a matter of priority. It urges Ireland to pursue its declared intent to make changes to the 2008 Bill in order to achieve greater consistency between the two statutes, and consolidate at the first possible opportunity the corruption offences into a single piece of legislation. In addition, the Group continues to recommend that Ireland adopt on a high priority basis appropriate legislation to achieve effective corporate liability for foreign bribery.”

The Minister for Justice etc. welcomed this report, congratulating some civil servants, in effect, for meeting regularly to keep under review Ireland’s continuing default.

This is not academic stuff. See HERE.

And what of the, inadequate and insufficient, Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008?

It’s not even in sight.