David Norris (Independent)

I am grateful for the Minister of State's reference to proposed legislation in regard to judges. I accept absolutely the separation of powers between the Oireachtas and the Judiciary. However, Senator O'Donovan is correct that while judges must be independent that does not mean they are infallible. I do not believe in infallibility, even for the particular gentleman who spends much of his time in the Holy City. It would be invaluable if such legislation were to come before the House.

I wish to address a couple of other matters, including the issue of attorney-at-law, of which I had not heard in the context of this profession although we have come across it in respect of other professions, in particular architects. Legislation, introduced in this House, created a necessity for professional competence in architecture, given the number of people in Dublin without the relevant qualifications purporting to be architects and the absence of any law to prevent them so doing. These people were purporting to be in a position to give professional advice.

With regard to the question of whether a civilian can ever play a useful role in the law, I am tempted to advertise my services. Some years ago an acquaintance of mine was involved in restoring an 18th century house in the centre of Dublin and while he did very well, he irritated some of his neighbours who manufactured a case against him. I received a telephone call late one night from this person who was in floods of tears. The following morning, I could tell the way the case was going that he was going to get himself into serious trouble. Having been an ardent fan not alone of Rumpole but of Perry Mason, I stood up in court and asked the justice if I could be recognised as amicus curiae. I am not sure such person was at that time known in Irish law but it certainly was known in American law. The judge, perhaps because texting or idly dreaming of the golf course, did not stop me and I managed to put the garda back in the witness box and demonstrate that the summons had been incorrectly served — it had not been served at all. I also put the witnesses back in the box and showed they were all lying and that they had conspired to give the same evidence but were too stupid to do it.

At the end of the case, the judge stated he had never come across such a situation and that I was correct, and he dismissed the case. I had earlier stated that, on the basis of the cross-examination, I wanted the case against my client dismissed. It was with immense pride that I uttered the words "my client". I must say but for my advanced years I would have been tempted to take up a career at the Bar. The elation I experienced on winning my first and, so far, only case was enormous.

Last week it was reported that a woman who is party to the anti-abortion lobby had attempted to join, I thought rather impertinently, a case involving retained embryos. She raised the question of amicus curiae and attempted to have herself recognised. While the learned judge gave a ruling which barred this woman from being accepted as amicus curiae the nature of her ruling would leave one to believe she was giving some credence to the existence of the role of amicus curiae.

Earlier, I wondered whether the attorney-at-law issue might, perhaps, be covered by the Trades Description Act, which is a British act. A very distinguished practitioner made the point rather urgently to me that lawyers are not trade.