restrictions on a Garda Commissioner denying allegations

Carawaystick

So the Commish can't legally comment on evidence to the investigations, but she could refute something that didn't happen right?

Also isn't having the same legal representation as subordinates a bit of a conflict of interest?

Carawaystick

Interesting snippets form the transcript of the investigation last night on Prime time.
It seems the Commissioner's lawyer made a mistake . I bet he still gets paid though.

I presume the Commissioner doesn't have to pay for it, but I didn't hear the baying like there was for Paul Murphy getting legal aid.

Mr. Incognito

The Barrister didn't pull this out of the blue sky- He was expressly instructed.

What I want to know is why the two Guards willing to commit fraud and purgery have not been sanctioned.

They introduced a statement to say that Garda McCabe had stated he was acting on a personal vandetta at a meeting with them

McCabe then produced recordings of that meeting showing this was a lie.

They withdrew the statement.

This was not mentioned in the Commission.

It's outrageous the lengths that the guards have gone to smear this man for shining a light on what is a hoplessly mismanaged and insular, even corrupt force.

Finnbar01

The commissioner never said the word malicious. She said Sgt McCabes claims were 'delicious'.

Carawaystick

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The Barrister didn't pull this out of the blue sky- He was expressly instructed.

According to Noirin's statement today, it *was* pulled out of the sky... :rolleyes:

coylemj

She's on to a good thing there because her lawyers can't contradict her - client confidentiality. Though the fact that it took her a whole week to come with that line could weaken her case.

Carawaystick

coylemj wrote: »

She's on to a good thing there because her lawyers can't contradict her - client confidentiality. Though the fact that it took her a whole week to come with that line could weaken her case.

Can Senator McDowell?

coylemj

Carawaystick wrote: »

Can Senator McDowell?

What hat would he be wearing?

Mr. Incognito

Ahh- The mechanics of Language- I love a good fudge.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/analysis-garda-commissioner-offers-clarity-on-key-issues-1.2660935

he request of Ministers since last week has been that the commissioner would provide “clarity”. She did this on two principal issues.

She clarified that she did not instruct her lawyers to impugn Garda whistleblower Sgt Maurice McCabe’s integrity, or to accuse him of malice.

But we knew this already, because it was contained in the second batch of transcripts leaked – to the commissioner’s advantage – after the first leak.

They show the commissioner’s lawyer confirming he was mistaken in seeking to challenge McCabe’s “integrity”, as the first transcripts had attested. But he was clear his instructions were to challenge McCabe’s “motivation and credibility”.

This is implicitly confirmed by the commissioner’s statement: “Whatever its source, the net charge that is now being made is that the credibility and motivation of Sgt McCabe was challenged.”

“I cannot see how it would be in any way unreasonable, improper or avoidable to appropriately test and cross- examine the evidence of all persons giving evidence to the commission including Sgt McCabe.”

This seems to confirm McCabe’s motivation and credibility were indeed challenged by the commissioner’s counsel on her instructions, as the transcripts show. How it is possible to challenge someone’s credibility and motivation without challenging their integrity is not explained.

The second issue is the importance of a meeting between two senior gardaí – named in the Dáil last night as Noel Cunningham and Yvonne Martin – and McCabe in 2008 to discuss the complaints he was making at that stage. It has been reported that the gardaí’s account of this meeting suggested McCabe admitted malice against a senior Garda officer as a motivation for some of his complaints.

But when McCabe produced a recording of the meeting for the commission it contradicted the account of the gardaí. There have been Dáil questions as to whether the discovery of the recording was related to the apparent change in O’Sullivan’s counsel’s approach.

Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald has also been asked if she has discussed this aspect of the controversy with the commissioner and whether it might lead to disciplinary action with the Garda.

The commissioner has asked Fitzgerald to refer the matter to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission for investigation. So the clarity offered here is: there may be a serious issue here and someone independent should investigate it.

The obvious question likely to be heard in the Dáil is why the commissioner is acting on this only now. The image of a force happier to let such matters rest until they are forced to address them by outside pressures is hardly contradicted by the approach of the commissioner.

It’s clear that the behaviour of ordinary gardaí can sometimes be delinquent. That is to be expected. It is also clear that when that happens, their colleagues cover up for them. That is also to be expected.

However, the special problem the force has is that all the internal disciplinary procedures and management processes, which should be equipped to get around this culture, instead are part of it. For all the talk about culture change, that much seems not to have changed.

NUTLEY BOY

coylemj wrote: »

She's on to a good thing there because her lawyers can't contradict her - client confidentiality. SNIP SNIP

Agreed.

Conversely, is a client entitled to say what instructions they gave the lawyer ?

seamus

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Conversely, is a client entitled to say what instructions they gave the lawyer ?

Yeah, I would say so, since the obligation of privacy is on the lawyer, right?

A good point was made on Newstalk yesterday, though I forget the specifics.

Basically that the lawyer representing the Commissioner was in effect representing that office (rather than the individual), so some other offices with superiority to the commissioner (the AG?) were entitled to instruct that same solicitor on how to proceed.
Which means that the commissioner can be telling the truth that she never instructed the lawyer to take that line.

Sorry for the lack of specifics, it was on Matt Cooper's show around 5:30 yesterday if anyone wants to listen back

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

A good point was made on Newstalk yesterday, though I forget the specifics.

Basically that the lawyer representing the Commissioner was in effect representing that office (rather than the individual), so some other offices with superiority to the commissioner (the AG?) were entitled to instruct that same solicitor on how to proceed.
Which means that the commissioner can be telling the truth that she never instructed the lawyer to take that line.

That sounds like uninformed speculation. If the Garda Commissioner instructs lawyers to represent her, the AG can't just step in between that lawyer and his client and give countermanding or additional instructions.

What if there was a legal conflict between the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice? Who's side would the AG be on then and where would the lawyer stand in that situation? A lawyer can't have two clients.

Carawaystick

coylemj wrote: »

A lawyer can't have two clients.

I thought the same counsel also represented the Super who interviewed McCabe in Mullingar?

NUTLEY BOY

coylemj wrote: »

SNIP SNIP A lawyer can't have two clients.

Why not if there is no issue as between the clients in question ?

coylemj

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Why not if there is no issue as between the clients in question ?

+1 If there is no conflict between the two then the one lawyer can represent them both. I guess the position regarding two clients is that where they clearly have the same objectives and common interests and one is prepared to be a silent litigant then the same lawyer can represent both.

Pro Hoc Vice

coylemj wrote: »

That sounds like uninformed speculation. If the Garda Commissioner instructs lawyers to represent her, the AG can't just step in between that lawyer and his client and give countermanding or additional instructions.

What if there was a legal conflict between the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice? Who's side would the AG be on then and where would the lawyer stand in that situation? A lawyer can't have two clients.

The one solicitor and barrister can represent a number of clients say the plaintiffs or defendants in the one case. But if a conflict arises then the lawyers have to make a choice.