The High Court has refused to order the release of a 17-year-old detained in a drugs investigation, ruling that the law did not entitle him to have a solicitor present during Garda interviews.
J.M., whose identity is anonymised in the judgment, had sought habeas corpus while detained at Coolock Garda Station after his arrest on suspicion of an offence under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. He was admitted to bail pending the full inquiry. The court heard the inquiry on 26 and 30 April 2013 and delivered judgment on 3 May.
J.M.’s lawyers argued that the refusal to allow a solicitor into the interviews made his detention unlawful. They pointed to his age and reported mental health and learning difficulties, and said access to legal advice during questioning was needed to make his rights effective. They also argued that Gardaí had applied a blanket policy without considering his individual circumstances.
The respondent disputed that any Irish or Convention right had been breached. The State argued that J.M. could have a parent or other suitable adult with him during questioning, and had access to legal assistance before the interviews. It also relied on the Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in *Lavery v Member in Charge, Carrickmacross Garda Station*.
Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan held that *Lavery* represented the law in Ireland: a suspect’s right to reasonable access to a solicitor did not include a right to have the solicitor present during interview. The judge said Gardaí might choose to permit a solicitor to attend some or all of an interview, but that choice did not give a suspect a right to require it or oblige Gardaí to consider attendance.
The court also said the European Court of Human Rights cases cited by the applicant did not establish a right to a lawyer’s presence during questioning. Unlike the applicants in the cited cases, J.M. had not been denied access to legal counsel before his initial interviews. The judge found that neither the evidence nor submissions established likely unfairness arising from the solicitor’s absence.
The court refused to direct J.M.’s release. The judgment did not determine the suspected drugs offence or any later criminal proceedings.