Top criminal defence solicitor convicted of €400 theft and attempting to pervert 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, Kingsbridge House, Parkgate Street, Dublin, denied the allegations against him.

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

Today, 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 25 November for sentencing.

ATM withdrawals

The trial heard evidence relating to a district court sitting on 30 July 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 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 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 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 Sanz Quilis’s bank account.

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

Giving evidence via videolink, Sanz Quilis said he only consented to money being withdrawn to pay the €200 fine.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

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.

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.

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

Advertisement

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.

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

During re-examination, Sanz Quilis said he was afraid 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 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 Sanz Quilis was interviewed by gardaí in the presence of an interpreter and a legal aid solicitor.

Garda 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 Sanz Quilis after his release.

Garda interviews

O’Higgins was invited on 8 December 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 30 July 2016 – outlined O’Higgins apparent interactions with Sanz Quilis. O’Higgins gave the originals to gardai when he was interviewed on 17 December 2018.

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

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

O’Higgins said he handed an envelope containing €400 and the charge sheets to 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.

‘Shit hitting the fan’

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 shit 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 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 20 March 2018.

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

He said he was “alarmed” after speaking to Garda 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 Sanz Quilis “didn’t realise” the money was returned to him.

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

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More Support The Journal