Closing speeches in trial of criminal defence solicitor

By Eimear Dodd 

A criminal defence solicitor accused of the theft of €400 “fabricated” notes with the intention of convincing gardaí it was a “weaker case”, prosecuting counsel has suggested to the jury. 

Cahir O’Higgins (49) has pleaded not guilty to the theft of €400 on July 30, 2016 at Londis shop, on Parkgate Street. 

He also pleaded not (NOT) guilty to four counts of perverting the course of public justice contrary to common law, on December 8 and December 17, 2017. 

Mr O’Higgins, of Cahir O’Higgins and Company, Kingsbride House, Parkgate Street, Dublin, denies the allegations against him.

The court has heard that Mr O’Higgins is a criminal defence solicitor with over 20 years’ experience. 

Evidence was given during the trial that Mr O’Higgins was standing in for a colleague to represent a Spanish national, Raul Sanz Quilis, who was before the District Court on July 30, 2016 on a charge of criminal damage in relation to a fire in a toilet cubicle at Dicey’s bar. 

It is the State’s case that Mr O’Higgins used his client’s bank card to make three withdrawals totalling €600 from an ATM and allegedly placed €400 into his pocket.

€200 was paid to the court and the case was then struck out. 

It is further alleged that Mr O’Higgins provided gardaí in December 2017 with a copy of notes he claimed to have made on July 30, 2016 and that he was aware these notes contained untrue information.  

In his closing speech, Eoin Lawlor SC, prosecuting, yesterday told jurors they must “dispassionately and critically” examine the evidence. 

Mr Lawlor suggested Mr Sanz Quilis was “the perfect mark for this theft” because he had been intoxicated, had poor English, was due to return to Spain and had “got off lightly”. 

He continued by suggesting that this appeared to be a “low-risk theft” when committed and that Mr Sanz Quilis was “uniquely vulnerable”. 

He submitted Mr Sanz Quilis was clear that he didn’t get his €400 back and that he was told by Mr O’Higgins that the money had been taken as fees. 

Mr Lawlor contended that a “drunk person may not remember how a fire started and is not being dishonest”. He suggested that this doesn’t affect Mr Sanz Quilis’s credibility. 

Mr O’Higgins “was not entitled to charge fees to Mr Sanz Quilis in circumstances where legal aid had been assigned,” prosecuting counsel told the jury. 

He asked the jury to consider if a 19-year-old with a “poor grasp” of English – who had just been in trouble – would have challenged a lawyer when told that a fee was being taken.  

Mr Lawlor noted the jury has heard evidence that extra money was withdrawn by Mr O’Higgins due to the possibility that the judge might order compensation. 

He put it to the jury that €400 would not be enough money to cover any loss suffered by the nightclub. 

Mr Lawlor noted that Mr O’Higgins said he returned the €400 to Mr Sanz Quilis in an envelope. 

He submitted: “it defies understanding that an experienced solicitor would take out cash without their client’s explicit permission and would give cash to someone accused of a crime and not seek a signed receipt or acknowledgement.” 

He told the jury that a recording made in 2020 of a conversation between Mr O’Higgins and Garda Tao Yu is “evidence of statements made, but not the truth of them”. 

He suggested that some of Mr O’Higgins’s comments during the recording were “an attempt to pressurise” Gda Yu to give particular evidence. 

He submitted the recording shows Gda Yu “attempting to reconcile his recollection” with what Mr O’Higgins was saying. 

Mr Lawlor suggested that the defendant’s comments during the recording that people were “out to get him” are “nonsense”. 

He told the jury that the allegation of perverting the course of justice arises from how Mr O’Higgins dealt with the allegation of theft when he became aware of it. 

Mr Lawlor said the notes presented by Mr O’Higgins to gardaí in December 2017 as contemporaneous to events of July 30, 2016 were “fabricated”. 

He suggested Mr O’Higgins “lied” in these notes and about them. Prosecuting counsel submitted the defendant continued to lie during his first interview with gardaí, before he “shifted” his story.    

Mr Lawlor submitted these notes are significant because while they are presented as a “mundane” record of what happened on July 30, 2016 , they were intended as a “defence” to the theft allegation. 

He suggested the notes were intended to deceive gardaí into believing “it was a weaker case than it was.” 

Prosecuting counsel noted that Mr O’Higgins had expressed concerns about the Law Society, but there is no evidence that a complaint had been made to the legal regulator.

He suggested Mr O’Higgins could have had a “dual intention” to “foresaw the Law Society by deceiving gardaí”. 

In his speech, senior defence counsel Michael O’Higgins suggested his client made a “reasonable request” to gardaí when interviewed to follow up potential lines of enquiry, but this wasn’t done. 

Defence counsel submitted these aspects weren’t “pursued because it was evidence that was capable of assisting Mr O’Higgins in defending this allegation of theft”. 

He submitted to the jury there is a “lingering suspicion” that this investigation was “only looking for evidence that pointed one way”. 

On the evidence of Mr Sanz Quilis, Mr O’Higgins suggested he lied to gardaí when interviewed and had “stubbornly persisted in that lie” in his evidence by maintaining “the starting of the fire was an accident”. 

He asked jurors to consider if the prosecution had advanced an excuse for a witness “who had plainly lied to you”. 

“I don’t know what is more troubling, him [Mr Sanz Quilis] doing what I suggest he did do or the prosecution trying to dress it up as a memory lapse.” 

Defence counsel said his client’s state of mind on July 30 when he withdrew the money was important for the jury to consider and there was no entitlement for him to charge fees, as legal aid had been assigned. 

Counsel asked the jury to consider if it’s possible that Mr Sanz Quilis was handed back €400 but left it behind due to his “tired state” and the general “hurly burly” of the court environment. 

Counsel submitted the money could have been returned, but Mr Sanz Quilis “didn’t appreciate he got the money back”.  

Mr O’Higgins SC said the defence acknowledges that his client “does not look well in this case”. 

“There’s no question in my view that the lies he told were lies to protect his interests”, describing the idea his client would lie as “reprehensible”. 

He told jurors the reality is that “everyone tells lies”, but asked “how many people do you know who quickly put their hands up and say it was a lie?” 

He asked if a successful person would “throw it all up for €400”.