WHO paid for the legal advice that Desmond Connell received when abuse victims complained to the Archdiocese of Dublin? Did Cardinal Connell, its former archbishop, pay the lawyers out of his own pocket?
Or were the legal eagles paid from archdiocesan coffers?
Did he seek that legal advice in a personal capacity or as administrator and leader of the Dublin Archdiocese?
Is an archbishop a sole practitioner answerable only to the Pope, or is a diocese a body corporate for the purposes of civil and criminal law?
The answers could prove crucial when the High Court convenes on Monday.
A judge is to decide if the State inquiry investigating how child abuse allegations were handled in Dublin breached the cardinal's purported legal privilege to documents the diocese has handed over to the Dublin Commission of Investigation.
Cardinal Connell's successor, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, has advanced all files requested and had apparently reached an agreement with the inquiry regarding the waiver of legal privilege for certain documents.
The agreement was not implemented, however, because the commission ordered that all of the documents be discovered.
The inquiry was due to start investigating some 5,000 documents Cardinal Connell claims are privileged when an unholy row erupted in the High Court on Thursday.
Archbishop Martin, a Vatican diplomat parachuted into the Dublin Archdiocese to sort out the abuse scandal, has said he is willing to give up an exemption from legal inspection that the documents enjoy.
But Cardinal Connell claims the disputed documents are privileged or protected by solicitor-client confidentiality.
Legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser -- either a solicitor or barrister -- and a client from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege, much like that of a penitent in confession, belongs to the client not the lawyer.
Connell (81), has secured a temporary injunction because he claims advice he got was legally privileged. He has also claimed confidential insurance documents are out of bounds for much the same reasons.
And despite the fact the documents were placed in diocesan files and submitted to the commission by Archbishop Martin on behalf of the Dublin diocese, Cardinal Connell insists the legal privilege is a personal one.
Challenge
The spirit of Charles Haughey may be invoked on Monday by Cardinal Connell's lawyers.
Mr Haughey and his family successfully challenged orders for discovery of their bank accounts made by the Moriarty Tribunal. The Supreme Court ruled that the tribunal made procedural mistakes and had used unfair procedures in not telling people their accounts were being looked at.
Developer Michael Bailey and his wife also benefited from the Haughey action when the Supreme Court quashed orders for discovery made by the Flood Tribunal in early 1998 in relation to Bovale and the Baileys.
In both actions, the complainants successfully argued that as clients of the banks involved, they had a right to know what discovery was being made against them.
So, too, could Cardinal Connell argue that his rights to fair procedures were breached because he was not notified of the agreement between the commission and Archbishop Martin to waive legal privilege to documents which he claims are his private communications.
The question of who paid for the legal advice received by Cardinal Connell and/or the Dublin Diocese could determine if Church or State wins this battle on Monday morning.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce