I should
really begin this post by saying that I'm not a solicitor. I'm not a
barrister either; I'm not even a law clerk. Everything I know about the
legal profession, I've gleaned from box sets of Rumpole Of The Bailey,
with the odd episode of The Irish R.M. thrown in for good measure.
This is a joke, please don't report me to Aodhán Ó Ríordáin!
So it
could be that when it comes to reporting on one of their own in their
official publication, the Law Society of Ireland operate a clandestine
set of rules that the rest of us don't know about.
That
said....I was more than a little surprised when a solicitor friend put
me wise to the article appearing on page 9 of the December 2012 edition
of the Law Society Gazette. (You can access the entire publication
here:
Law Society Gazette and then scroll down to page 9.)
As
you can see, the story seems to be part of a regular slot entitled "In
the media spotlight" - presumably focusing on members of the profession
who are involved in high profile cases. The December slot is devoted
to Gerard O'Donnell, Solicitor for Praveen Halappanavar, husband of
Savita who died tragically on October 28th in University College Galway.
I
have a few problems with this article. Why was it considered an
appropriate topic for inclusion in the Gazette, given the fact that an
investigation is currently underway and the results are awaited?
Newspapers can't report on legal cases before they come before the
courts for fear that the Defendant will claim that his right to a fair
trial has been prejudiced. Why wasn't the same consideration applied
here? Surely the editors of the Gazette were aware of the way in which
Savita's tragedy has become part of the national debate on abortion?
Yet they chose to print an article which allowed the solicitor involved
to broadcast his own views on the matter. In fact, the Gazette allowed
him to canvass his case without any thought for the fact that this
implies a clear bias on the part of the editors:-
"It
was disappointing that some politicians sought to coerce my client to
partake in a process in which he had absolutely no faith or trust."
"I
would have hoped that the Government would have responded promptly and
efficiently to my client's request for a full public inquiry, but
unfortunately, this has not yet happened."
But
perhaps the most worrying aspect of this article is the way in which it
highlights the way in which the media was used throughout. The
solicitor himself admits on several occasions throughout the article
that media manipulation allowed him to stage-manage the way in which the
case was handled:-
"I
had some experience of working with the media. I have always had an
interest in human rights and in the equal treatment of all persons. I
realised this case would benefit from sustained exposure in the media
rather than a one-off media 'storm', and so we chose to release
information to the media more slowly in order to ensure that the case
would have continued momentum. This certainly worked."
"A
case such as this highlights just how important the media is in
society. The interest in the case could not be achieved simply by
writing letters."
It
is hard to read these comments without being amazed at the fact that
the solicitor involved sees nothing wrong with ensuring a "drip-feed" of
information to the media - something which we have seen result in
near-hysteria during the weeks following Savita's death. To act in such
a way over an issue of vital importance like abortion is grossly
irresponsible. It is also quite remarkable that the editors of the
Gazette would see fit to publish this piece. By revealing the way in
which the media was controlled during this fraught and tragic case, they
have confirmed what many suspected but few were able to prove. Gerard
O'Donnell's own words do not lie.
Unfortunately,
they also reveal a more fundamental problem in society - the fact that
the media is being placed above everyone. Cases involving human tragedy
are played out in the most public forum possible. Maximum attention is
sought and ensured, thus denying the general public the opportunity to
have a calm and rational response. And what happens now, when we don't
even have the results of the investigation? Those responsible for
dripping the information to us are heralded by their own professional
Body, and given even more exposure!
Perhaps
the Law Society should bear in mind the comment that my friend made to
me - the fees for membership of this organisation increase annually.
For a pro-life solicitor like him, one-sided articles like this one
really stick in the craw, not to mention the wallet.
I'm a celebrity lawyer ... get me out of here!
