Lawyers participating in next Monday’s charade should be aware that they will be wittingly or unwittingly supporting Yorgen Fenech’s cause to have evidence against him ruled-out over Constitutional and legal grounds. They are also wrong legally and morally.
Client-lawyer conversations are legally privileged conversations but they are not absolute meaning that the State can still intercept a conversation between a lawyer and their client if the parties are planning or conducting fraud or another crime. Lawyers can be criminals too – just like anyone else.
In addition, Yorgen Fenech is not an ordinary criminal. There are several legal interpretations under which he could be classified as a terrorist. He still enjoys the right to a client-lawyer privacy as a terrorist but this privilege fades away very quickly if the suspect is using his privileged discussions with his lawyer to extend his terrorist activity.
Human rights unequivocally apply to everyone, but these rights are not absolute in relation to criminal and terrorist activity. There is no human right which absolves a terrorist whilst conducting criminal and terrorist activity.
In addition, the State also has the monopoly of violence and this monopoly can be executed in a timely manner against terrorists to protect society. The moment a terrorist is about to harm other people, at that particular moment, the State is obliged to neutralise the threat in order to prevent the immediate harm of civilians.
In any case, the charade on Monday is totally unnecessary because the State has already denied that any interceptions have taken place in prison.
Website Editor
Historian and Publisher
Leave a Reply