Solicitor Cahir O'Higgins found guilty of theft and perverting the course of justice

One of the country's top criminal defence solicitors has been convicted of the theft of €400 and four counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Cahir O'Higgins (49) had pleaded not guilty to one count of the theft of €400 in July 2016 and four counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice in December 2017 by providing notes to gardaí which he knew contained incorrect information.

O'Higgins, of Cahir O'Higgins and Company, Kingsbride House, Parkgate Street, Dublin, denied the allegations against him. The court has heard that O'Higgins is a criminal defence solicitor with over 20 years' experience.

On Friday, the jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilty on all five counts after just under five hours of deliberations.

O'Higgins made no reaction as the verdicts were delivered.

Judge Martin Nolan thanked the jury for their attention and work during the case.

Remanding O'Higgins in custody, Judge Nolan adjourned the case to November 25th for sentence.

The trial of O’Higgins on allegations of theft and perversion of the course of justice heard evidence relating to a district court sitting on July 30th, 2016.

Spanish national Raul Sanz Quilis was before Dublin District Court having admitted criminal damage in relation to a fire in a toilet cubicle in Dicey’s Bar.

Judge John Coughlan indicated that if Mr Sanz Quilis paid €200 to the Court Poor Box, the case would be struck out.

The judge made his decision after hearing evidence of arrest, charge and caution from Garda Tao Yu and that the accused man, who was in custody, was pleading guilty.

No representative from the solicitors assigned to Mr Sanz Quilis under the legal aid scheme was present in court. Instead, arrangements were made for O'Higgins to stand in and represent him.

Gardaí obtained Mr Sanz Quilis’s bank card and PIN, then gave them to O’Higgins who’d volunteered to go to an ATM.

O’Higgins went to the Londis on Parkgate Street where CCTV showed him withdraw cash, then place it in a piece of paper.

O'Higgins made two further withdrawals and put these into his trousers pocket, before making a further attempt to use the ATM.

Evidence was heard that three cash withdrawals totalling €600 were made from Mr Sanz Quilis’s bank account.

When O'Higgins returned to court, €200 was paid and the case struck out, meaning Mr Sanz Quilis was left without a conviction.

Giving evidence via videolink, Mr Sanz Quilis said he only consented to money being withdrawn to pay the €200 fine.

After his release from custody, he saw O’Higgins, who told him he “took money out for his services”. Mr Sanz Quilis said he was more focused on leaving.

He later clarified that the solicitor referred to a “quantity” of money, but he didn’t understand due to his limited English.

Mr Sanz Quilis insisted O’Higgins didn't give him back any money.

He rejected the defence's suggestion that he deliberately started the fire, insisting it wasn’t intentional.

He also denied that O’Higgins handed him money after his release, which he then could have spent or lost it.

Mr Sanz Quilis accepted it was possible O’Higgins told him he'd taken extra money out, and he’d replied he didn't want it as he wanted to leave.

He denied the defence’s contention that he didn't want to return to Ireland because of his poor recollection and, as he knew, he'd been lucky to avoid a conviction.

Mr Sanz Quilis said he was afraid of the “lawyer” and “that he would do something against me”.

During re-examination, Mr Sanz Quilis said he was afraid to because of his treatment by the gardaí and the “lawyer”. “I do not know the power that lawyer has against a person like me who is a nobody”.

Judge Martin Nolan ruled inadmissible a portion of Mr Sanz Quilis's statement where he referred to contact from a third party who offered to return €400 to him following his return to Spain.

The judge said the third party’s knowledge of the €400 suggested a connection with O'Higgins, but this was “not clear”.

“I'm not certain this witness is sure that was said [or] that O'Higgins gave precise instructions to this mediator,” the judge added.

The trial heard that Mr Sanz Quilis was interviewed by gardaí in the presence of an interpreter and a legal aid solicitor.

Gda Yu gave evidence that an interpreter also assisted the accused man during the district court hearing. He said he pointed out the interpreter to O’Higgins, who declined their assistance when he spoke to Mr Sanz Quilis after his release.

CCTV footage showed O'Higgins speaking with Gda Yu briefly outside court after Judge Coughlan indicated he would strike out the case if €200 was paid.

Gda Yu’s evidence was that he didn’t have a memory of this conversation, but accepted he wanted to raise the issue of compensation with the judge, but it wasn’t possible.

The recording

The jury heard a recording made by O'Higgins of a conversation he had with Garda Yu during 2020. This conversation included O'Higgins reading a series of questions and answers, and asking Gda Yu to comment.

Gda Yu wasn’t then aware the conversation was being recorded.

The defence cross-examined Gda Yu using a transcript of this recording before it was played in court.

Gda Yu accepted the transcript states he saw O'Higgins pass something to Mr Sanz Quilis but said he didn't have a memory of this.

During the recording, Gda Yu agreed with O’Higgins that they spoke and that he’d indicated his intention to ask the judge about compensation if possible.

O'Higgins also asked Gda Yu if he recalled him saying he would withdraw extra money “in anticipation” of the judge directing more compensation.

Gda Yu said he couldn’t remember, adding, “you might have, but I wasn’t paying attention”.

O'Higgins said that it was “hugely important” that the issue of compensation was open. He said his intention was to withdraw €200 at the ATM, but he took out a further €400 and “had it in my pocket” in case the judge directed compensation.

O'Higgins said he returned the money to Mr Sanz Quilis.

The defendant said he’d “annoyed people” and was worried “someone in the gardaí or the DPP's office wants to stitch me up”.

He expressed concerns that Gda Yu might have forgotten some details by the time of any trial.

O'Higgins said he was worried another member of An Garda Síochána would ask Gda Yu not to give certain evidence. Gda Yu replied that he wouldn’t change his evidence if asked to do so.

'Cahir, you’re a devil'

The final 22 seconds of the recording were not played to the jury, having been ruled inadmissible by Judge Nolan after legal argument.

The court was told O’Higgins said “Cahir, you’re a devil” after Gda Yu left the car.

Defence counsel argued that the context is unclear, but the jury may interpret the words as “sinister”. Prosecuting counsel asked the court to play the full recording.

Judge Nolan said “it’s such a striking comment a jury might be overly influenced by it”. He noted the jury might anyway consider it “underhand” for a solicitor to record a conversation with a garda.

Garda interviews

O'Higgins was invited on December 8th, 2017 to attend a voluntary interview about the theft allegation. O’Higgins later emailed Detective Garda Colm Kelly, attaching two photos of handwritten notes.

These notes – dated July 30th, 2016 – outlined O’Higgins' apparent interactions with Mr Sanz Quilis. O’Higgins gave the originals to gardaí when he was interviewed on December 17th, 2018.

O’Higgins said he attended district court that day “as a favour” to another solicitor and spoke to Mr Sanz Quilis beforehand.

As his view was that the judge may order compensation, O’Higgins said he got permission to use Mr Sanz Quilis’s bank card and consent to withdraw €600.

O'Higgins said he handed an envelope containing €400 and the charge sheets to Mr Sanz Quilis after the case was struck out.

He finished writing up his notes that evening and later dropped copies into the office of the assigned solicitors.

Later in the interview, O'Higgins admitted he became aware of a complaint by the Spanish Embassy and said he wrote the notes around October 2016 “in anticipation of s**t hitting the fan with the Law Society”.

He said his main concern was a potential Law Society investigation. Later, he told gardaí it was a “grave error of judgement” to provide them with “bullshit notes”.

O'Higgins said he only spoke to Mr Sanz Quilis once and had limited memory of this.

He said he withdrew €600 so on the basis of “implied permission”, but had no consent to do this.

He said he had 20 years experience “without an allegation of dishonesty” and wouldn't risk his practice for €400.

O'Higgins provided a prepared statement when interviewed voluntarily for a second time on March 20, 2018.

In this statement, he couldn’t recall if he spoke to Mr Sanz Quilis before court, but believed he hadn’t.

He said he was “alarmed” after speaking to Gda Yu and deemed it “appropriate and responsible” to plan in case Judge Coughlan directed additional compensation.

O'Higgins said he “hoped” Judge Coughlan would “settle on” €200, but he had €400 “as contingency”. He said he hadn't sought consent but “inferred” it in the circumstances.

He said he gave the money back in an envelope.

O'Higgins suggested a “misunderstanding” may have occurred or that Mr Sanz Quilis “didn't realise” the money was returned to him.

Det Gda Kelly rejected the defence’s suggestion that the investigation didn’t follow up issues raised by O’Higgins during interview.

Closing speeches

Closing the prosecution’s case, Eoin Lawlor SC suggested Mr Sanz Quilis was “uniquely vulnerable” to this theft, due to his prior intoxication, poor English, and as he’d “got off lightly”.

He submitted Mr Sanz Quilis was clear and credible in his evidence.

Noting the defendant’s profession, Mr Lawlor said it “defies understanding that an experienced solicitor would take out cash without their client's explicit permission” and “give cash to someone accused of a crime and not seek a signed receipt or acknowledgement”.

He suggested that the defendant's comments during the recording that people were “out to get him” are “nonsense”.

He told the jury that the perverting the course of justice charges arise from O'Higgins’s actions after he became aware of the theft allegation.

Mr Lawlor suggested O'Higgins “lied” in and about these notes, which were intended as a defence against a theft allegation.

Prosecuting counsel noted O'Higgins expressed concerns about a Law Society investigation, but suggested the accused could have had a “dual intention” to persuade the legal regulator and gardaí.

In his speech, senior defence counsel Michael O'Higgins said his client’s state of mind when he withdrew the money was important to consider.

Counsel suggested Mr Sanz Quilis lied to gardaí about how the fire started and “stubbornly persisted in that lie” in his evidence.

Counsel asked jurors if it's possible the money was returned, but Mr Sanz Quilis “didn't appreciate” he got it back.

Defence counsel acknowledged his client told “lies to protect his interests”, but said the reality is that “everyone tells lies”.

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

Defence counsel suggested that the “lies” in his client's notes don’t relate to the theft allegation, but were to anticipate possible regulatory queries.

He submitted it is a “leap” to say these notes were intended to pervert the course of justice.

Counsel suggested that “it’s not possible to be satisfied beyond doubt what happened here” and the “correct verdict is not guilty”.