The District Court has held that a mother in ongoing child care proceedings could discuss relevant material from those proceedings with a solicitor she sought advice from about possible criminal matters, without first obtaining an order lifting the in camera rule. The court made no order on her application for directions.
The mother had not been charged with an offence arising from allegations assessed by a statutory child sexual abuse assessment unit. She had been arrested and questioned, and the judge said it was reasonable for her to apprehend that she might face charges. Her legal aid representation covered the child care case, not criminal advice.
She asked to speak with a named criminal solicitor about matters from the child care proceedings that might be relevant to obtaining advice. She did not seek to have reports, interview DVDs or other documents made available to that solicitor. The Child and Family Agency and An Garda Síochána did not object to an order in the requested terms. The Guardian ad Litem took no position. The Assessment Unit objected.
The judge accepted the mother’s argument that a solicitor consulted for this limited purpose fell within her “private sphere” for the purposes of the in camera rule. The judgment relied on an observation in a prior High Court decision concerning a client’s private sphere, while noting that the point had little other guidance. It rejected the Assessment Unit’s argument that the prior decision was irrelevant.
The court did not decide whether the in camera rule should be lifted. It concluded that no lifting was needed for the limited discussion sought. The mother remained subject to the rule and could not otherwise disclose evidence from the protected proceedings. The judgment also said she could not authorise the solicitor to disclose that evidence; doing so would breach the rule and could attract sanctions.
The judge considered the children’s best interests, despite receiving no evidence on their views or wishes. The judgment said the proposed limited consultation was not expected to adversely affect their health, development or welfare, and that expanding the pool of people with knowledge of the case posed no real risk of detriment.
The application arose while the substantive care order proceedings under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 were part heard. The judgment addressed only the mother’s proposed confidential consultation with a solicitor, not disclosure of case materials or their use in any criminal proceedings.