The Gazette 1972

Committee on Court Practice and Procedure The Solicitor's Right of Audience THIRTEENTH INTERIM REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

PRESENT POSITION (5) The right of audience in the High Court and Supreme Court is not based on statute or rule of court but on -usage and practice. It is not therefore a question of a right but a privilege given by the Court. Except when the procedure can be and has been prescribed by statutory authority or has been settled by long usage, a court or other tribunal has the right to regulate its own proceedings—see Collier v. Hicks [1831], 2B. & Aid. 633, at pp. 668, 670, 672. The long established usage of the former Superior Courts in this country and in Great Britain was that solicitors have not had a general right of audience in the Superior Courts. This usage has been continued in the High Court and Supreme Court since the establishment of the State. (6) The general picture within the State is that, while barristers have a right of audience in all courts, solicitors have such a right in the District Court and in the Circuit Court but, save for some minor exceptions, not in the High Court. The right of audience in the Supreme Court is confined to members of the Bar. When a barrister is formally called to the Bar in the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice, he is in express terms admitted to practice as an advocate in the Courts of Ireland. High Court Judges have on occasions per- mitted solicitors a right of audience in a case to move an adjournment or seek some other interlocutory order. A litigant in person is permitted to exercise a right of audience to make his own case in all courts and it is believed that this right of access to the courts established under the Constitution is a right guaran- teed by the Constitution. The question as to whether a right of audience can be exercised other than as a litigant in person or by a member of the legal pro- fession was considered by the Supreme Court in two recent decisions, viz: Battle v. Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd. [1968] I.R. 252 and The State (Richard Tynan) v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison (Re Michael Woods) delivered 19th December 1967 (not yet re- ported). In the former case a lay person was not per- mitted to act as advocate for a limited company of which he was the managing director and in which he was the owner of one half of the issued shares. In the latter case it was held that a lay person was per- mitted to make a complaint to the High Court that another person was being detained otherwise than in áccordance with law and to move the Court to enter into an enquiry into the matter pursuant to Article 40 of the Constitution. It was also held, however, that when the detained person was produced in Court pur- suant to the order of the Court, the lay person whose complaint had put the inquiry in train was not en- titled to appear as an advocate for the detained person although he was permitted to advise him and assist him in the examination of the cause of the detention offered in justification by the person holding custory of the person so detained. (7) The provisions of the relevant statutes and rule? of court regulating Jhe solicitor's right of audience are mentioned in the following paragraphs.

To : Desmond O'Malley, Esq., T.D., Minister for Justice MAJORITY REPORT INTRODUCTION

(1) The Committee on Court Practice and Procedure were appointed by the Minister for Justice on the 13th April, 1962, with the following terms of reference : (a) to inquire into the operation of the courts and to consider whether the cost of litigation could be reduced and the convenience of the public and the efficient despatch of civil and criminal busi- ness more effectively secured by amending the law in relation to the jurisdiction of the various courts and by making changes, by legislation or otherwise, in practice and procedure; (b) to consider whether, and if so to what extent, the existing right to jury trial in civil actions should be abolished or modified; (c) to make interim reports on any matter or matters arising out of the Committee's terms of reference as may from time to time appear to the Com- mittee to merit immediate attention or to war- rant separate treatment. (2) The Committee have taken the topic of the Solicitor's Right of Audience as the subject-matter of this their Thirteenth Interim Report. The term "right of audience" as used in this Report means right of audience as an advocate. (3) The Committee sought from the persons and bodies whose names are set out in Appendix A hereto views on the subject matter of this Report and on the question of whether a voluntary fusion of the pro- fessions of the solicitor and the barrister would be in the interests of litigants. The Committee received views on these subjects from the persons and bodies named in Appendix B hereto. A small number of others wrote to say that they had no news to offer. We intend to devote a later Interim Report to the latter topic. (4) The Committee also, by notice published in the daily press, invited members of the public to submit views on these topics. These matters, however, are not ones which have interested the public sufficiently to reply to our newspaper notices. It is now over fourteen months since the press notices appeared and replies have been received from only three persons (two of whom were solicitors). We wish to express our gratitude to all those who assisted our work by offering their views either in reply to our letters seeking assistance or in response to the newspaper notices.

- 2 7 6