Right to have a solicitor present during interview by gardaí.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056159#Comment_118056159

No. I'm saying solicitors don't want to spend their day in an interview room at a Garda station.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056190#Comment_118056190

It's a practice direction issued by AGS, it has no statutory authority or legal standing, it creates no legal rights and imposes no obligation on the Gardaí so the answer would be no, what does have legal status however is the continued confirmation by the superior courts that there is no right to have an actual presence of a solicitor and as you know non statutory practice direction can't trump that.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118051406#Comment_118051406

110%. I've been on jury duty twice, and went into a courtroom for a look one day as I was passing by and had time to kill. I've seen Gardai outright lie about tbh extremely basic things which I knew to be incorrect.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118053421#Comment_118053421

This kind of rhetoric is normally comes from people who believe that they're smarter than everyone else, on basically every topic. The possible repercussions of you not knowing how to fly a plane, or check the safety of the gas supply in your house house could be fatal. Maybe you can do both of those things, but if not, is it because you're too stupid?

hierro

Upon arrest a person arrested is twice informed of the right to legal representation. That right may be declined by the person arrested but can be excerised at any time. So that person has a right to reasonable access. Sometimes those who have never had a reason to use a criminal solicitor look for one who may have dealt with family law, civil law or conveyance work for them in the past. This is probably not a problem during business hours but many of these solicitors have no out of hours advisors. It's sometimes difficult to get that point across. The law society of Ireland have a Garda station solicitor list which, when viewed, generates a random list of solicitors which the arrested person is free to choose from that list.

Whilst the right to access a solicitor is in place, they rarely come to the station. When they do, a solicitor can sit in on an interview but their influence on proceedings is somewhat limited.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/committees/criminal/guidance-for-solicitors-providing-legal-services-in-garda-stations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi99OPf0t3zAhVCi1wKHbGmCPEQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1HoZC0eTfL0eDmTwz3sj0z

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056554#Comment_118056554

Bizarre examples which have nothing in common with the topic discussed here. But to your point: yes, I decided to fly a plane I’d die and you could happily name stupidity as the cause of death.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056844#Comment_118056844

You've repeatedly said that the reason people might not know something which could have bad repercussions for them, is because they're just too stupid.

As you say, you're responsible for your own life. If you are gullible enough to believe the gas supply in your house is safe, don't whinge when it explodes one day and bites you in the ass. There are basic things in life that an adult should know about. One quick thought on possible repercussions of an unsafe gas line usually does the trick and gets people to learn about. If someone is unable to do this they are stupid in my world.

See, I can turn the exact same logic back at you, and it's very easy to justify how stupid you must be, not to know about something which could kill you. The truth is you just don't have experience in a particular area, that doesn't make you stupid.

At the same time, when people are dealing with the Gardai they should rightfully expect that their rights are followed to the letter, and not have to worry about something which they have no experience, in what for most is probably a stressful situation.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056071#Comment_118056071

The phrase "ruling by the DPP" was used in the article itself. Obviously, it was a poor choice of vocabulary.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056230#Comment_118056230

Additionally, its could serve to remedy certain shortcomings in the conduct of the Garda investigation, as the accused will be seen to have had comprehensive legal advice which was fully informed.

Unless there were particular circumstances to warrant otherwise, I would say obtain the legal advice prior to interview.

JimmyVik

I was interviewed as a witness to a crime that was not a crime.

In the interview room they were really hostile to me and accused me of lying. They also bent my words into things I did not say.

I had absolutely nothing to gain by lying or even telling the truth one way or the other. They wanted to frame their man and thats what they were trying to do.

If I were ever interviewed by the Gardai again, I would definitely want a solicitor.

Potential-Monke

Yeah, when you're arrested you get given your rights, and that states that you're entitled to a solicitor. I believe (iirc) it's said again at the start of an interview, and the interview is put on hold until the solicitor arrives. And bubblypop is right, very few solicitors want to sit in on an interview, because they can take hours or days, depending on the offence. Most come, have a quick chat with the suspect, tells them to say nothing at all, and leaves. Then the interview goes ahead, chap says nothing, makes the Garda job that bit easier, rinse and repeat.

But solicitors are only there to give advice, if they interfere with the process other than to give advice, they can be removed from the interview. This was happening as par for course when I left around 2015.

scudzilla

I was arrested about 17yrs ago back in Wales, it was after an incident that involved my ex (also the mother of my 3 kids), she's an alcoholic and was consistently harrasing my GF and causing trouble at her shop, so much so that we got a restraining order out, that didn't stop her though.

Rightly or wrongly one day i snapped after more abusive texts, i went around, took her sim card out of her phone and snapped it, then walked out.

Cop called me in, had nothing to hide or be afraid of so didn't bother with a solicitor, HUGE mistake, i was accused of kicking and punching her for 10mins non stop, her not having any bruises didnt seem to matter to the cops, i was released on bail and had to report back to cop shop 2 months later, this time i went in with a lawyer, an ex cop who hated the cops, all charges dropped, best 150quid i ever spent.

TLDR : ALWAYS, AND I MEAN ALWAYS, take in a lawyer and don't say a word until he's there

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056071#Comment_118056071

The judge in Gormley basically invited a challenge to the decision in Lavery. Taking that as an indication that it would likely be overturned if challenged, there was an administrative decision taken to allow solicitors to be present during questioning in order to preempt that. Lavery was however, as you mention, subsequently reaffirmed in Doyle.

From your link:

9.10 [...] Likewise, the question as to whether a suspect is entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning does not arise on the facts of this case for the questioning in respect of which complaint is made occurred before the relevant lawyer even arrived. However, it does need to be noted that the jurisprudence of both the ECtHR and the United States Supreme Court clearly recognises that the entitlements of a suspect extend to having the relevant lawyer present.

I.e. Gormley was about access before being questioned. So the judge couldn't deliver a judgement on access during questioning. But that paragraph was taken to be a strong hint that Lavery would be overturned.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118051645#Comment_118051645

and also have to give you a form with all your rights

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118057277#Comment_118057277

What’s your point exactly? Where did I claim that I was above everyone else? I applaud you for the length you go to to challenge my thinking.

You can throw a hundred unrelated scenarios at me but it won’t change my mind. Only an idiot would allow themselves to be questioned without legal council. It's the same principle as driving without insurance.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118053361#Comment_118053361

If you have no experience of a process you cannot be blamed for not having experience of a process. Except where you are expected to have experience of a process without having had experience of a process.