Access to Four Courts complex

elgransenor

Hi,I am wondering if anyone knows where I can apply to get a pass card to access Four Courts as I am an apprentice who is in and out of there very often now and it is a pain going through security all the time and emptying pockets etc.
I am led to believe that apprentices can obtain such cards.
Thanks.:)

johnnyskeleton

Apply to the Courts service or ask the principal of your firm to do it for you.

elgransenor

OK,thanks.

Our man in Havana

Why are solictors/barristers exempt from security provisions?

dats_right

Bond-007 wrote: »

Why are solictors/barristers exempt from security provisions?

As officers of the courts both branches of the legal profession are afforded certain privilleges. In that they can enter the Four Courts complex from Chancery Street, Chancery Place or Morgan Place without the need to be searched or have their belongings scanned, whereas Joe Public can only enter from Morgan Place and only after having walked through metal detector and having belongings scanned in X-ray machine thingy.

Apprentice Solicitors are entitled to a security pass, you can print the application form from this link:

http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/16c93c36d3635d5180256e3f003a4580/44e884991e5c254480257264003d6fe9?OpenDocument

Our man in Havana

Is it due to the privileged nature of any documents that they may be carrying?

dats_right

Would personally find it insulting, if lawyers, as respected officers of the courts we were to be subject to the same level of checks that Joe Public has to go through.

I doubt whether the privileged documents lawyers might be carrying has any bearing on it, rather the above and also from a practical point of view solicitors and barristers are constantly running in and out of the Four Courts complex and back in again, so it would be ludicrous and highly impractical for them to pass through security every time!

Maximilian

Bond-007 wrote: »

Is it due to the privileged nature of any documents that they may be carrying?

Its due to the fact that they are officers of the Court who have business there, usually on a daily basis. If for no other reason it doesn't make sense to make them queue up to enter the buildings.

In any building where there are security checks & queues, you wouldn't expect the staff working there to be subject to the same level of checks as the customers.

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote: »

Is it due to the privileged nature of any documents that they may be carrying?

No, it's because they're tradesmen and so they have to go in the tradesmen's entrance.

Our man in Havana

Fair enough so. Thanks for clarifying the situation.

Milk & Honey

dats_right wrote: »

As officers of the courts both branches of the legal profession are afforded certain privilleges.

Barristers are not officers of the Court!

dats_right

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Barristers are not officers of the Court!

Okay, fair enough you have caught me out:o. Perhaps, I should have said: "Because solicitors are officers of the courts and barristers have an overriding duty to the court to ensure in the public interest that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved and they must assist the Court in the administration of justice and must not deceive or knowingly mislead the court and as such both branches of the profession are deserving
of certain privileges."

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Barristers are not officers of the Court!

Do you have any links or authorities to back this up with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_court

http://www.qldbar.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=16&Itemid=33

My understanding was that barristers and solicitors are officers of the court, although in the UK sometimes it is said that solicitors are the officers of the courts and barristers are it's ministers.

Tom Young

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Barristers are not officers of the Court!

Yes they are. You should also check the word Barrister in a dictionary!

Milk & Honey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Do you have any links or authorities to back this up with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_court

http://www.qldbar.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=16&Itemid=33

My understanding was that barristers and solicitors are officers of the court, although in the UK sometimes it is said that solicitors are the officers of the courts and barristers are it's ministers.

Those links are of no help. Try this.

http://legal-directory.net/english-law/comparison-of-solicitors-and-barristers.htm
and this
http://books.google.com/books?id=vGtFnkO2NxAC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=%22officer+of+the+court%22+barrister&source=web&ots=RuF918m3F-&sig=4OF8maBlvUdS7tccx97KzqgcbjE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

Barristers and solicitors are only admitted to the Four Courts complex without a search only if in possession of photographic ID issued by the courts service.
It has nothing to do with their status in law but with the perceived security risk. Staff of the Land Registry and Courts Service and others who have occasion to visit the Four Courts Complex frequently are issued with ID as a matter of practicality. The Courts Service would need massive numbers of security staff to search each barrister and solicitor and others several times a day as they move in and out of the complex. The benefits from a security point of view would be negligible and the costs disproportionate to the objective.

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Those links are of no help.

Just because they are no help to support your point of view, does not mean that they are of no help in determining the issue. The wiki article notes that an officer of the court is someone involved in the courts and administration of justice, and that attorneys are officers of the court. While Attorney is an American name for lawyer, it would apply to all lawyers in Ireland. Why is the Australian link of no help? It clearly states that barristers are officers of the court.

Milk & Honey wrote:

Try this.

http://legal-directory.net/english-law/comparison-of-solicitors-and-barristers.htm
and this
http://books.google.com/books?id=vGtFnkO2NxAC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=%22officer+of+the+court%22+barrister&source=web&ots=RuF918m3F-&sig=4OF8maBlvUdS7tccx97KzqgcbjE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

The first link doesn't say why barristers are not officers of the court, and I can't read the second link on my computer. What is an officer of the court in those definitions?

So why is a solicitor an officer of the court and a barrister isn't. I think the words of Lord Reid in Rondel v Worsley (1969) 1 A.C. at page 227 make it clear that a barrister is an officer of the court:

'Every counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks will help his client's case. But, as an officer of the Court concerned in the administration of justice, he has an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his client's wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests."

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Barristers and solicitors are only admitted to the Four Courts complex without a search only if in possession of photographic ID issued by the courts service.
It has nothing to do with their status in law but with the perceived security risk. Staff of the Land Registry and Courts Service and others who have occasion to visit the Four Courts Complex frequently are issued with ID as a matter of practicality. The Courts Service would need massive numbers of security staff to search each barrister and solicitor and others several times a day as they move in and out of the complex. The benefits from a security point of view would be negligible and the costs disproportionate to the objective.

I understand all that but I'm just curious as to:
1) why you think barristers are not officers of the court (which they are); and
2) why you felt the need to try to bring it up?

Milk & Honey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just because they are no help to support your point of view, does not mean that they are of no help in determining the issue. The wiki article notes that an officer of the court is someone involved in the courts and administration of justice, and that attorneys are officers of the court. While Attorney is an American name for lawyer, it would apply to all lawyers in Ireland. Why is the Australian link of no help? It clearly states that barristers are officers of the court.

Australia has an almost unitary legal profession with those called entitled to practise in either branch. A wiki article can be edited by anybody and is therefore inherently unreliable.

Just because something is not explained does not mean that it is untrue and can be ignored. The second article deals with the historical position. Attorney is used in the sense of the profession that existed before 1873 which then merged with the solicitor profession. It is not the same as the word attorney as is used in America You might get some help on the tech forum for your computer.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So why is a solicitor an officer of the court and a barrister isn't. I think the words of Lord Reid in Rondel v Worsley (1969) 1 A.C. at page 227 make it clear that a barrister is an officer of the court:

'Every counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks will help his client's case. But, as an officer of the Court concerned in the administration of justice, he has an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his client's wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests."

I understand all that but I'm just curious as to:
1) why you think barristers are not officers of the court (which they are); and
2) why you felt the need to try to bring it up?

1. I was told by a Senior Counsel one month ago that Counsel are not officers of the court.

2. The whole security question at the Four Courts complex has nothing to do with officers of the court anyway. Cleaners and messengers and others can get photo ID and do not have to be searched as they enter and leave the complex. On the other hand High Court judges even though fully robed have been refused entry because they were not in possession of their ID. It amuses me as to why individuals on this forum have such a sense of their importance as to try and describe what is simply a rational security system, as a matter of privilege and dignity supposedly essential for the administration of justice!


Solicitors as officers of the court can have their practising certificate suspended or cancelled by the High Court. This is not true of barristers who cannot be suspended from practice by the courts.

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Just because something is not explained does not mean that it is untrue and can be ignored.

So explain to me then why a solicitor is an officer of the court and a barrister isn't. Officer of the court simply means someone involved in the administration of justice, a role shared by barristers and solicitors, as well as judges, the master of the HC and taxing master and a variety of other persons involved in the running of the courts.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

1. I was told by a Senior Counsel one month ago that Counsel are not officers of the court.

Is it possible that this senior counsel was wrong? What was his reason for saying this, did he stop you on the street and say by the way, barristers aren't officers of court or how did it come up? Did he explain why barristers are not officers of the court? Did he explain the difference between barristers and solicitors which justifies one being an officer of the court and the other not.

But more importantly, I could say that 10 senior counsel (why not 10 high court judges even) told me that barristers are officers of the court, and it doesn't get us any further. However, the quote above from Lord Reid is quite clear about barristers having a duty to the court as they are officers of the court. So I think this is better authority than an un-named senior counsel.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

2. The whole security question at the Four Courts complex has nothing to do with officers of the court anyway. Cleaners and messengers and others can get photo ID and do not have to be searched as they enter and leave the complex. On the other hand High Court judges even though fully robed have been refused entry because they were not in possession of their ID.

I think you've taken it up wrong. Lawyers get cards because they work there, in that regard they are no different to the cleaners and messengers (there are obvious differences between them and cleaners, for example, cleaners get a steady wage).

Milk & Honey wrote: »

It amuses me as to why individuals on this forum have such a sense of their importance as to try and describe what is simply a rational security system, as a matter of privilege and dignity supposedly essential for the administration of justice!

I've looked at your other posts and you seem to describe posters in Legal Discussion as "Walter Mitty types" which is odd because you don't explain why you think this and also because you post here yourself. But in any event, what has been said in this thread is that lawyers get these cards because:
1) (as dats_right says) it is a privilege extended to lawyers because they are trusted by the courts
2) (as Maximillian says) it's because they have business there and to make them go through security checks would lead to long queues
3) (as I said) it's because they're tradesmen who come in the tradesmen's entrance.

I don't think anyone has overstated the position or suggested that it is a matter of dignity, we are saying that they are given the cards because they work there and go in on a daily basis.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Solicitors as officers of the court can have their practising certificate suspended or cancelled by the High Court. This is not true of barristers who cannot be suspended from practice by the courts.

So are you saying that the definition of an officer of the court is someone who can have their practice certificate suspended by the courts? I would have thought that it is more to do with their role in the administration of justice or at the very least related somehow to rights of audience etc.

Victor

dats_right wrote: »

Would personally find it insulting, if lawyers, as respected officers of the courts we were to be subject to the same level of checks that Joe Public has to go through.

Does this include one Mr. Lynn or not?

A lawyer having a security pass to the Four Courts probably isn't a right that comes with the office, but one given based on personal knowledge, just like any other security pass.

Of course, anyone could pass hand grenades in through the railings.

Milk & Honey

The reason why barrister are not officers of the court is historical:

www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/Professionalism/Officer.asp

Where do you look to find your job description as an Officer of the Court? There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution, the Oath of an Attorney, or any statutes that establish lawyers as Officers of the Court. We hear it stated in open court and we see it in cases, but is there a definition somewhere that would enable you to say, "There - because I am an attorney, I am an Officer of the Court"? So why do we refer to ourselves as Officers of the Court? Why do we, and others within the legal system, use this phrase over and over again to refer to the role of an attorney?

If we look at history we may gain some insight. Being referred to as an Officer of the Court is a tradition that takes us back to the early English legal system, where attorneys were considered officers of the court and were subject to the court's discipline, just as if they were members of the clerical staff. Attorneys did not argue cases; rather, they performed ministerial tasks. English barristers pleaded and defended cases and were admitted to practice by self-regulating professional organizations, never being referred to as officers of the court.1 Therefore, this specific phrase, like the practice of law and the role of attorneys, has evolved over time into an expected standard of conduct.

And
From Mr. Justice Cardozo:- in his book Law is Justice

The barrister, unlike the attorney, was not in the strict sense an officer of the court where he was privileged to speak. He was called to the bar upon the ...

Maximilian

Victor wrote: »

Does this include one Mr. Lynn or not?

Next time Mr. Lynn visits the Four Courts, he will have his own security with him. (hopefully soon)

johnnyskeleton

Milk & Honey wrote: »

English barristers pleaded and defended cases and were admitted to practice by self-regulating professional organizations, never being referred to as officers of the court

So Lord Reid is wrong eh? Or perhaps because he is an English judge referring to barristers as officers of the court, maybe that article is wrong?

In any event, what you are saying is that because English barristers are admitted to practice by the inns of court rather than the court itself, they are not officers of the court. Even if I accept this as a valid reason to call solicitors but not barristers officers of the court, it wouldn't apply to Irish barristers. In Ireland, barristers are called to the bar by the Chief Justice, not their Inn, so that definition does not apply to Irish barristers.

It seems to me that there may have been some funny business in the term officer of the court prior to American independence, but if there was, any such distinction is now well and truly gone, and barristers are officers of the courts, and this is essentially because they are involved in the administration of justice and have an ethical duty not to mislead the court. This makes them officers of the court in my view.

Carawaystick

What exactly are the security risks?,
how much does the security cost?, and when did the ID card scheme for some workers in the 4 courts begin?
How long does security screening take and how long is the target time for security screening?

grumpytrousers

i'm sorry that i'm not pitching in with thoughts on whether barristers are officers of the court or not, but i thought i'd share this story which i saw in the Phoenix a while back.

It would seem that our esteemed former Minister for Justice and Keeping Out Foreigners was recently attempting to gain entry to the Four Courts complex whilst done up in his Senior Counsel finery. Upon reaching the card swipe gate, the story goes, that he realised he had forgotten his ID card, but was running late. He attempted to reason with the chap manning the gate that he was a barrister (d'uh) and could he get in. The security guard was not an Irish National and insisted to Mr McDowell SC that his instructions were that only persons in possession of an ID card were allowed through, otherwise he would have to go and be searched at the front gate.

It would seem our be-wigged friend was less than impressed with this and tried the 'Do You Know Who I Am?...it's a mistake, i honest forgot my ID' line to our friend in the yellow jacket to which our hero allowed the faintest trace of a smile to cross his face and said 'I certainly do know who you are...but without the proper documentation to verify this....' and pointed him to the front gate.

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

What exactly are the security risks?,

Aside from a large collection of people with criminal inclinations ... there were a number of incidents with improvised explosive devices. I don't think any of them detonated though.

how much does the security cost?

I don't know, but I imagine there were 5-7 on gate duty when I was there. I don't know what the invisible benefits or reduced garda time was costed at.

and when did the ID card scheme for some workers in the 4 courts begin?

Almost immediately after the introduction of the enhanced security.

How long does security screening take and how long is the target time for security screening?

Less than a minute, similar to an airline search, but with much smaller queues.

Carawaystick

don't airside staff including aircrew have to pass through the same or similar security at airports though?
If it only takes less than a minute, why the fuss to allow certain workers through without screening them?

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

don't airside staff including aircrew have to pass through the same or similar security at airports though?

Of course, this doesn't stop the pilot hijacking the aircraft.

If it only takes less than a minute, why the fuss to allow certain workers through without screening them?

Some courts workers would be in and out constantly.