The director of the Legal Aid Board, Mr Frank Brady, has confirmed the probability that a High Court judicial review of a Cork District Judge's decision involving a free legal aid solicitor will be sought early next week.
Ms Marguerite Fennell was held in contempt of court at Kanturk District Court before Judge Michael Pattwell on Wednesday, was arrested and fined £2 when she continued to argue the case for her client before the judge. Other solicitors attending the court walked out and discontinued their attendance before the judge.
In an unprecedented move, Judge Pattwell issued a statement yesterday. He said that at the call-over of the family law list in a back room in Kanturk Courthouse, he was asked to take a case and was told that an order could be made by consent.
He said that, at the time, he believed this was in ease of both Ms Fennell and her client and he agreed to hear the case. His statement went on to say that the solicitor addressed the court "in a certain way and with some degree of excitement and aggression (which aggression, I should say, was not at that time directed at me but at the parties of the other side of the case.) "Some of the matters she raised were, in fact, matters she was quite right to be concerned about, and I believe I made that clear to her, but reminded her more than once that I believed she was addressing them to the wrong forum as they were matters over which I had no control. E
"She continued to harangue the court and it became clear to me that the matter was not ready for ruling and I told the solicitors I would come back to it again at a later time in the day . . . "Ms Fennell appeared to be to become angry and, in what appeared to me to be an aggressive voice, made certain remarks. I told Ms Fennell that the matter was put back to not before 12 noon and I would hear her then and if she she persisted in speaking I would hold her in contempt. "She persisted in speaking and in accordance with my prior notice to her, I held her in contempt of court and ordered her to be taken into custody to enable her to consider her position before I imposed a penalty.
"In due course I caused her to be brought before me again and quite frankly, expected her to purge her contempt. I was particularly pleased that she had at that time instructed a solicitor, Mr Jim Lucey, to appear on her behalf and was somewhat taken aback when he informed me that his client, Ms Fennell, felt she had no apology to make.
"That being so, my original finding of contempt crystallised and I imposed a penalty of £2 and gave Ms Fennell 14 days to pay the fine or serve one day in prison in default of payment. "I later added to my order, though my jurisdiction to do so is doubtful, and there was liberty to re-enter the matter at any court in my district for the purpose of purging her contempt.
"I have had to speak to and reproach Ms Fennell on more than one occasion previously and she has apologised to me previously for her behaviour. I now know today, though I didn't know it yesterday, that she has been fined before for contempt of court, but she subsequently purged her contempt and the matter was left at that."
The judge said he was concerned at how the matter was reported on RTE's news bulletin on Wednesday evening and about the manner in which it was carried in a national newspaper. He said he had a number of phone calls from family and friends, including some of his children, who were worried about him due to the manner in which the case was reported.
For this reason he had decided to clarify the issues before him. He said he was further concerned that the Southern Law Association had taken action, effectively boycotting his court sittings, without hearing the other side of the issue. "In particular, I am amazed that trained lawyers would act in this way and withdraw from the court, leaving their clients without legal assistance.
"I am even more amazed that trained lawyers did not and cannot see that this matter can be and should be dealt with by a judicial process. I, as a judge of the District Court, am open to review in the High Court and I have never taken offence when a litigant opts to do so.
"That, of course, is the way I would deal with it if I were advising Ms Fennell and she honestly believes she has done nothing wrong," Judge Pattwell said. The Southern Law Association said last evening that Ms Fennell vigorously contested the facts as stated by Judge Pattwell.
It added: "Be that as it may, the association cannot agree that any solicitor appearing on behalf of a client can be threatened with contempt, no matter that the argument is a vigorous one.
"Solicitors would be in an invidious position if, during a case, their clients cannot have their cause argued fully and without fear of arrest or imprisonment of their advocates.
"It is for this reason that the members of the Southern Law Association have withdrawn their services in any court presided over by Judge Pattwell until the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of their members."
Due to technical difficulties the judge's decision to hold Ms Marguerite Fennell in contempt was not reported in yesterday's editions.