Criminal lawyers not enemies of the State, says judge

A lawyer who enjoys success defending persons in criminal proceedings "might be regarded because of his success as an enemy of…

A lawyer who enjoys success defending persons in criminal proceedings "might be regarded because of his success as an enemy of the State", a High Court judge said yesterday.

But such lawyers are, in fact, a bulwark to protect justice and the people and are essential in any democracy, Mr Justice Kinlen said. Identifying lawyers with their clients clearly violated UN principles on the role of lawyers.

He was giving judgment in an action taken by Michael E. Hanahoe solicitors, of Parliament Street, Dublin, against the State and the Garda Commissioner.

Mr Justice Kinlen said: "It is essential in our society that lawyers of the highest ability should be available to provide a full and proper defence to persons accused of criminal offences.

READ MORE

"Unfortunately, public opinion does not always accept that principle, and sometimes lawyers are identified with clients, which clearly violates UN principles on the role of lawyers.

"Sometimes criminal lawyers are wrongly accused of colluding with their clients and sharing in the profits of crime. These are very serious allegations and should not be accepted until there is proof to establish them. The vast majority of criminal lawyers provide wonderful work to secure liberty and to protect our democratic institutions." "In this case there is no evidence as to why anyone would want to damage the Hanahoe firm as they are well-known and extremely successful. They have appeared for the Gilligans and also for the late Ms Veronica Guerin.

"There is no doubt they suffered damages . . . They have received abuse and they are perceived by people who do not have a proper understanding of our system as being identified as people who are under suspicion of crime. The Law Society felt it was sinister and intimidatory in the eyes of some of its members."

This was an era of "fantastic and intrusive invasions of privacy." These invasions were increasing, but the court must be the restraining arm to protect privacy and only allow invasion where on balance it could be justified.