Fine Gael went full-negative against Catherine Connolly at the weekend. The party’s video on the candidate’s refusal to answer questions regarding whether she represented banks or other financial institutions as a barrister in cases involving home repossessions is headed for a million views on X – and a deluge of criticism.
The video uses footage of Dáil contributions where Connolly laments the dreadful effect of such repossessions, saying that she was speaking for people who had lost their homes because of the “criminal behaviour of the banks”, saying that they had not taken these actions in her name. Fine Gael then accuses Connolly of “complete and utter hypocrisy”. In turn, Connolly said Fine Gael had reached “absolutely a new low”.
A clip is included in the attack video of footage from 2016 published by this platform on Friday which showed Catherine Connolly becoming agitated and annoyed when she is approached by a woman named AnnMarie Folan who asked her if she had been involved in cases where people had been evicted from their homes. The exchange is interesting because Connolly is clearly being evasive and then tries to equivocate further by accusing Folan of shouting (she wasn’t) and claiming unnamed persons were running a “poisonous campaign” against her.
The issue for Connolly isn’t so much whether she did represent the banks in home repossessions, but that she keeps running away from the question. The Council of The Bar of Ireland has issued a statement defending what’s known as the “cab rule” which they describe as the duty of barristers to accept instructions, to ensure “that everyone is entitled to access to justice and is central to trust in the Irish legal system and the rule of law”.
Legal experts I have spoken to say that the cab rule is strictly adhered to in criminal cases since everyone, including those accused of the most repellent crimes, is entitled to a defence. However, I was told, a barrister with a deep moral objection to a particular civil case, say as in the matter of evicting a family from their home, might refuse or claim that their diary was full, but it could be ruinous for one’s career. It’s understandable then, not to refuse, but that might be also why it could be unwise to make a huge issue of accusing banks of bad behaviour – even of criminal behaviour – on evictions if you’ve acted for financial institutions in regard to home repossessions. It might leave you looking like a hypocrite.
Fine Gael’s video smacks of desperation, however, and it seems unlikely to make much difference to the huge lead that Connolly now enjoys over Humphreys in this farcical two-horse race – though there is a strong, emotional, collective reaction against evictions and those who enabled them in this country, given our history.
It does also leave the party wide open to questions around the role that their own deputy Barry Ward, also a barrister, in acting for a Somali diplomat who is accused of people smuggling in a case before the Irish courts.
From the Irish Times court reporting in July:
A Somali diplomat arrested at Dublin Airport and charged with people-smuggling offences has launched a High Court challenge against his detention in an Irish prison, claiming diplomatic immunity.
Mohamed Abdallatif Hussein, who is attached to the Federal Republic of Somalia embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was arrested by gardaí at Dublin Airport on November 26th last year.
He was brought before Dublin District Court later that day accused of two counts of alleged people smuggling under the Criminal Justice (Smuggling of Persons) Act, 2021, at Dublin Airport’s terminal one.
Last January at Cloverhill District Court he was further charged with four counts of alleged people smuggling under the Act at terminal two, Dublin Airport, on November 6th and September 30th last year.
He has not yet entered a plea on any of the eight charges.
Barry Ward SC, for Mr Hussein, told the High Court on Monday his client has been held here “unlawfully” since November and was entitled to diplomatic immunity.
A previous report in The Times said that the accused was suspected of smuggling “multiple women” into the state, and that his detention had “intensified scrutiny” on how smugglers are “exploiting official channels to move people across borders”.
So another “cab rule” situation then? Is Deputy Ward simply ensuring that Hussein has the defence he is entitled to – including bringing an application seeking his client’s release from prison? Does Fine Gael have its own answers at the ready? Isn’t it a case of what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?
I imagine many voters would be surprised that a TD and member of one of the current governing parties is also acting as a barrister, especially in a case this controversial and particularly when topics like people smuggling and immigration are currently such hot-button issues. And surely TDs are too busy dealing with the plethora of seemingly intractable problems this country faces to spend time down in courts racking up barristers’ fees? Doesn’t the double-jobbing smack a little of the kind of greed that voters find very unattractive?
Can conflict of interest issues arise when a government TD is also arguing cases at the High Court? And more broadly, for the avoidance of doubt, wouldn’t it be better that any member of government not be involved in defending a man accused of people trafficking, especially when the legal strategy involves ensuring the accused can avail of diplomatic immunity and avoid facing charges in court?
Maybe some straight answers from both Connolly and Fine Gael would be a welcome change from the awful farce that this Presidential race was destined to become almost from the beginning?