David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am concerned that these provisions will affect a clear weakening of legal privilege. It is a valued principle in law that the documents and other information exchanged between a lawyer and his or her client are privileged. That privilege is being diluted under this provision. I am not at all sure, moreover, that what is set out here is watertight. Once the information gets out, it is effectively abroad. Amendment No. 30, meanwhile, provides that a client of a legal practitioner may apply to the High Court to determine matters of privilege. That is a bloody expensive route to take. The provision, in effect, is creating a charge for citizens to assert their right to legal privilege. That does not seem right and I am very concerned about it.

The whole area of client privilege is so fundamental to law that I would be very hesitant to change it in any way, which these amendments certainly seek to do. Of course, where a client is willing to give a waiver, there is no problem. The problem arises where the client considers it is in his or her interests not to have certain information disclosed. For instance, if there was information about a possible infringement of law, whether of a slight or major kind, I imagine a client would be very loath indeed to have the types of discussions he or she had with a lawyer bruted abroad.

I will not have an opportunity to come back again on this proposal, so I emphasise the importance of this matter. I am greatly concerned about the violation of privilege. As I said, it is fine if there is no client is involved or if the client gives a waiver. If no waiver is given, however, there is cause for serious concern. Moreover, if such a client seeks to defend his or her rights, there is a considerable cost involved in going to the High Court.