Author: gavin

Irish (secret) Law Society

Constitution of the Republic of Ireland
Article 34 (I)

Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.

The above constitutional provision does not apply to Irish solicitors. They are allowed to conduct their own private justice system, in secret, behind closed doors. In addition, if the Law Society finds any of its members “guilty’ it will be allowed to dispense justice as it sees fit according to its own rules.

Of course, to maintain some semblance of accountability, the society will disclose some details but its principal concern will be to protect its members. How do we know this?

Firstly, the Law Society operates in a conflict of interest environment. It is responsible for regulating but at the same time representing its members. Secondly, it effectively operates as a secret society. I have spent the last two weeks emailing and phoning the society asking some very basic questions. For example: How many solicitors have been struck off, reprimanded or fined in the last five years? I have been met with a stone wall of waffle but no answers.

We can already see how the society is carefully “managing’ information in order to minimise damage to its members. Here is what Ken Murphy, president of the Law Society, had to say about the victims of his society on RTE News on November 2nd ‘

‘A great many of these will not turn out to be complaints about overcharging fees, they will turn out to be amounts that were deducted from the awards cheque for unpaid medical certificate charges which is really quite legitimate.”

Of course, this is a ridiculous statement. We are being asked to believe that the cost of medical certificates amounted to the tens of thousands of Euros that have already been paid back to the victims.

But it doesn’t matter what waffle the Law Society come out with because the State is not interested in obtaining justice for the society’s victims and nobody else is allowed challenge this very well protected section of Irish society.

11 firms to appear before independent body

The slow wheels of ‘justice’ turn in regard to the theft of tens of thousands of euros from victims of abuse. The Irish Times report:

In an interim report, the Law Society revealed that 11 firms of solicitors, in relation to 20 individual complaints, had been referred to the disciplinary tribunal for inquiry in relation to their conduct in redress board cases.

When a complaint is made, it is first considered by the society’s complaints committee.

In each of the complaints referred to the disciplinary tribunal, the committee has required the solicitor to make a refund of fees to their client with interest and without delay.

…

He said the disciplinary tribunal was independent of the Law Society and was the final forum. He estimated that the hearings could be heard in early 2006 and the process concluded around February or March.

If the solicitors were found to be guilty of misconduct their names and the rulings would be published, he said.

Normally, tribunal hearings are in public but under the redress board legislation claimants are guaranteed confidentiality so an application for privacy could be made.

Tribunal orders are as enforceable as High Court orders.

It is Day 42 since the controversy arose. Still no arrests.

Suspended garda begins challenge to tribunal

Latest from the Morris Tribunal:

The detective wants the module deferred until a criminal trial in which he is being prosecuted is completed. He denies the charge and all allegations against him.

The move follows a judgment last Friday by tribunal chairman Mr Justice Frederick Morris refusing the detective’s application to adjourn the module.

The chairman ruled that the module should proceed in private as a public hearing could prejudice Sgt White’s criminal trial. He said the evidence would cover the same issues as those to be heard in the trial.

…

The chairman said he was not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice or necessary to protect the right of Sgt White to a fair trial to grant an adjournment until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

He said the legal cases could go on for some time, particularly if they were appealed. It was now more than four years since Sgt White was charged. Delays had already taken place in the hearing of the trial and there was a realistic danger that it could be some years before it came to a hearing, if ever.

Anti-corruption group calls for ombudsman

Over the weekend a new anti-corruption group, headed by Frank McBrearty Jnr., was launched at the Mansion House in Dublin. This is a welcome development. I was contacted some weeks back by a representative of the new group but have not heard back since. The Irish Times reports on it today:

He announced the new group at a public meeting held on Saturday afternoon in Dublin’s Mansion House. He likened the new group to the One in Four campaign, in that it will seek to deal with what he terms as victims of the abuse of power by State institutions.

Mr McBrearty was accompanied at the launch by eight other speakers on the platform, including TDs Dan Boyle, Joe Higgins and Sean Crowe, as well as journalists Frank Connolly and Eamonn McCann; Aisling Reidy of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties; and Labour Cllr Nicky Kelly and Osgur Breathnach – both of whom were wrongly convicted for the Sallins train robbery in 1976.

About 250 people attended the meeting, including Labour Party justice spokesman Joe Costello.

Mr McBrearty said the primary aim of the group was the setting up of an ombudsman similar to the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Nuala O’Loan.

This weblog welcomes the aims of Anti-Corruption Ireland, and hope that Irishcorruption.com can assist in highlighting corruption in Ireland.

First rule – Always be covered

I think it’s very curious that the Government have decided not to publish the Ferns Report on the internet for “legal reasons’. The report is available from Government Publications only in hard copy. It is not available on CD.

A spokesman for the Health Service Executive (HSE), the Dept. responsible for the report told me

‘The report was not actually published. It was placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas and is therefore covered by Executive privilege.’

This is consistent with the way things are done in Ireland. No matter how serious the situation is, no matter what damage has been done to innocent citizens, no matter what loss has been suffered, the first rule is ABC – Always Be Covered.

Of much less importance but also curious is how difficult it is to contact the Government Publications Office. You would imagine that this service would be available on the internet for citizens to browse through the many publications.

Not only is it unavailable on the net but it is “invisible’ in the telephone directory. You must first be inspired to realise that this important office comes under the Office of Public Works (OPW).

The Ferns Report is on the internet, despite government shenanigans. It can be accessed at Ferns Report.

Government Publications – 01/6476879
Mail Order Section – 01/6476000

Councillor charged with misuse of funds

From today’s IT, in a story by John Fallon:

A councillor has appeared in court in connection with the alleged misappropriation of funds belonging to Galway County Council.

Cllr Michael Fahy, who resigned from Fianna Fail last year when this matter first emerged, but who continues to serve as an independent member of the council, appeared before Kinvara District Court.

And the alleged crime:

The alleged offences relate to incidents going back over four years and include summonses in relation to amounts of €7,523.91 and €3,702.12. He also faces two summonses under the Larceny Act 1916 and under the Criminal Justice Act.

Council struck deal to sell public park it didn't own

A helpful reader emails from Limerick highlighting a story from the Irish Examiner last week. Karl Hanlon writes in the Examiner:

Limerick City Council struck a deal to sell off part of a public park they didn’t yet own to a developer. Documents show the council agreed to “facilitate” a private development of the land nearly a full year before planning permission was granted to the company for a 59-unit apartment complex and a mix of retail/office space.

Freedom of Information documents show the local authority agreed in writing to sell part of the People’s Park to Reidy Civil Engineering Ltd for €1.57 million as far back as 2002, even though it didn’t own it at the time.

The land was, in fact, held in trust and covered by the terms of a 500-year lease entered into by the Earl of Limerick, the People’s Park Trustees and Limerick Corporation in the 19th Century.

But wait, there’s more

In January 2004, Limerick City Council formally completed the purchase of the site from both the People’s Park Trustees and the Earl of Limerick’s estate for €150,000 and later completed the sale of the same lands to the developer for €1.57m more than 10 times the price.

The sale of the 0.44 acre site was only formally approved by City Hall earlier this year.

Limerick city manager Tom Mackey denied yesterday that the price agreed was less than the market value of the land and said he was satisfied that the disposal of the land had been carried out properly.

A spokesman for Limerick City Council confirmed that the Department of the Environment had been in contact with the local authority’s finance department seeking clarification on details of the sale of the land.

It is also understood that Environment Minister Dick Roche has been presented with a letter detailing many aspects of the disposal of the land by the council.

Dick Roche is on the case…we are saved.

The sale was not put out to public tender and a slightly larger piece of land adjoining that purchased by Reidy Civil Engineering Ltd raised some €2.85m when it was sold to another developer on the open market.

Limerick City Council said there was nothing unusual in deciding against putting the site on the open market and said the sale price was reached on a “pro-rata” basis relative to the sale of the adjoining site.

Local residents raised strong objections to the controversial development on a site which they said had been given to the people of the city for use as a public park.

Independent city councillor Jim Long who first brought the controversy to light, said local residents were angry that it appeared that a deal was done without adequate public consultation.

Minister of State Tim O’Malley said yesterday: “The questions are there to be answered, and the day is long gone when deals like this could be done without the degree of accountability required.”

The questions are there to be answered indeed, but they won’t be.

Theft in the army

In a unrelated story to that posted below:

In a separate development, MPs have begun an inquiry into allegations that a member of the Defence Forces at Rockhill Barracks, Letterkenny, Co Donegal, had been stealing diesel from military vehicles and replacing it with illegal, laundered fuel.

It has been alleged the fuel used to refill the vehicles at Rockhill had its origins in an illicit fuel laundering operation run by individuals linked to the Provisional IRA. Much of the laundered fuel operations in Border counties are controlled by paramilitary figures.

Mr O’Dea has confirmed that an allegation relating to the larceny of fuel is being investigated.

More nice language from O’Dea. It is interesting that this story features as a footnote to the story previous, it hints at collusion between the Provos and the Army in Donegal, a claim I have not read prior to this – besides perhaps the infamous Gardai.

Army fraud suspects may face Garda

Conor Lally writing in today’s Irish Times details the story of money going missing. I like the way the headline says may face Garda. (Gardai?)

Two members of the Defence Forces who were involved in an alleged 10-year misappropriation of funds may face a Garda investigation, Minister for Defence Willie O’Dea has said.

The Army last week stated that €70,000 had been recovered and that, because the personnel involved had not used other expended funds for their own personal gain, gardaa­ would not be called in.

However, Mr O’Dea has said he is not satisfied with statements on the matter made by the Southern Command, in whose area the matter took place.

“The final decision will rest with me as Minister for Defence to decide on what further action is needed . . . If I believe there was any form of criminal activity involved, I will ask outside authorities to investigate and I will make that decision once I study the Military Police (MP) investigation report this week.”

I like the word misappropriation, it sounds nice. It reminds me of Father Ted, the money was just resting in his account.

They were then allegedly paying the hotels by cheque for more meals than were consumed and allegedly had an arrangement with the hotels whereby the surplus money was kept on deposit for them. The money was then used during future visits.

It is alleged the men were also taking some cash sums from the money on deposit and using it to buy supplies such as stationery.

When the matter came to light, some €70,000 was being held on deposit by three hotels. This has since been recovered.

However, it is believed the alleged misappropriation took place for up to 10 years and that much larger sums were involved during the entire period.

Well as long as the money is recovered, no crime was committed right? And €70,000 pays for quite alot of meals. But wait:

However, it is believed the alleged misappropriation took place for up to 10 years and that much larger sums were involved during the entire period.

So this arrangement was a longstanding one, and a number of hotels turned themselves into banks. The question is where did all the money go, and what advantage was it to the hotels to hold on to the money, extra business from the army?

Call me cynical, but I can’t see any arrests arising from this.

Claims of solicitors' conflict of interest

I have heard stories like this from friends, and it was raised recently and reported in today’s Irish Times. Basically people are coming in to solicitor’s offices and trying to force their elderly parent(s) to sign over land or property to them.

Ken Murphy, director-general of the Law Society, said there was a clear ethical obligation on any solicitor not to act in a situation where there was a conflict of interest between their clients.

“Certainly if there is a person with diminished capacity and that person is signing away an interest then in principle there should be separate and independent legal advice for both parties,” he said.

If a solicitor was acting for two parties where there was a conflict of interest he or she could face a professional misconduct hearing and there was also the possibility that the transaction the solicitor was involved in could be challenged at a later stage, he added.

Mr Murphy said anyone with concerns about solicitors acting in situations where they had a conflict of interest should report this to the Law Society. They should also seek independent legal advice “if they have suffered as a result of this situation”.

By the way it is Day 22 since reports of solicitors stealing money was first aired. Still no arrests.