Right to have a solicitor present during interview by gardaí.

After doing jury duty I would never ever ever ever do an interview with Gardai without a solicitor present, whether I was 100% innocent or guilty as hell.

The Garda Station will have a list of solicitors on call.

Are you not "read your rights" whilst being arrested?

I'm really stupid because I don't know the answer.

Yes. However people don't always appreciate the point.

So is a pensioner with early stage Alzheimer's stupid? Or someone who has been in a traumatic situation with extremely high levels of adrenaline? Or someone from a different country with different laws who is here for a weeks vacation. There are no excuses, they are always just stupid?

This is video is from a US context, but I think it applies equally well here.

It's a lawyer, and a police officer telling you from both perspectives that it is essential you say nothing to the police, unless you have legal advice present. Literally, say nothing except ask for a lawyer, whether you're guilty or innocent.

https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

"Dr Vicky Conway said it was perhaps the case that solicitors were unwilling to give advice during (as opposed to before) the interviews due to the interviews being recorded for evidential purposes and also that most people were unaware of a 2014 ruling by the DPP that there was a right to have a solicitor present during the interview (and I'm aware that it didn't always exist, given that the Supreme Court had ruled in 2017 in the case of convicted murderer Barry Doyle that the right of access to a solicitor didn't include the right to have the solicitor present during the interview)"

Some clarity on this.

There has never been a right to have a solicitor present during questioning, and it was not a "ruling" by the DPP either, rather a mis-interpreted (or more importantly a clearly wrong) understanding of a previous Supreme Court case - the DPP vs Gormley and DPP vs White [2014] IESC 17.

Following advice from the DPP, AGS issued a 2015 practice direction saying a solicitor was entitled to be present (if requested) in light of the Gormley case (the practice direction is still the live version):-

And this is what it specifically states:-

What actually happened in the Gormley case was that the SC just reconfirmed that reasonable access to (not presence of) a solicitor was a Constitutional right (having been so since 1990 and a common law right prior to that since 1977).

Despite the assertion made by the DPP a person in custody was not entitled to a solicitor being present during interview as a result of the Gormley case, how the DPP cane to that conclusion is not known, but, for anyone thinking perhaps the Gormley case gave them that impression or it was implied or unclear etc, the answer is no it didn't, in fact the Gormley case specifically stated quite the opposite:-

The Supreme Court stated the question of presence of a solicitor did not arise, and confirmed the matter had already previously been decided:-

The 2017 Doyle case basically just reconfirmed what it had already stated in the Gormley case and the 1999 Lavery case, and still the 2015 practice direction is still live which says the Gardaí must inform you of your right to have a solicitor present, and your entitlement to do so if you so request.

Depends on what you're asking here.

If the guards interview you without a solicitor present despite your having requested one, do you have the recourse of e.g. being able to sue them for damages? No, probably not.

If the guards interview you without a solicitor present despite your having requested one, and later charge you with an offence and in the proceedings for that offence seek to rely on evidence of what you said in the interview, can you object to the admissibility of the evidence? I'd defer to GM228 on this - in fact, I'd defer to a lot of people on this - but my gut sense is that, no, you can't say straight up that the evidence is inadmissible but yeah, you've still got some mileage here. Even if you can't point to a constitutional right that has been violated, if nothing else the guards acting in breach of applicable directives can be used in support of a wider argument that the investigation was not properly conducted, that proper standards were not observed, that information obtained is tainted and must be viewed with suspicion.

You actually can say straight up the evidence is inadmissible if you don't get access because the matter has already been well settled by the Supreme Court.

Evidence obtained without access to a solicitor is admissible when you wave your right to access to a solicitor.

Otherwise, evidence (with the exception of evidence obtained by way of taking of samples) obtained without access to a solicitor after you request such access is inadmissible and unconstitutional.

I think the question is, what if you are afforded access to a solicitor, but (in breach of the protocol, but not in breach of your constitutional rights) are not permitted to have a solicitor with you during the interview?