TELEPHONE-TAPPING SIR,-1 will confine my answer to Mr. John Sparrow's
criticisms to quoting two people who were perhaps in a better position to judge of my conduct than he was.
The first, a distinguished member of the Bur who was in my Chambers, writing to me on July 3, 1957, had this to say : My dear Patrick, I'm very sorry. You were a good friend in Chambers, and I wish we had more like you. Keep a good heart and don't despair. A man of your character will never be beaten. Yours ever.
The second, Mr. Frank McGarry, a senior reporter of the Daily Express newspaper and a witness for the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn against me:
Mr. Marrinan said that he ought to go to Dublin as he believed that perjury had been committed in a recent trial at the Old Bailey and he didn't want it to happen again. He was recalling the circumstances of my alleged intervention in Habeas Corpus proceedings in Dublin and, as he had arranged my meeting with Dimes and had been present during the whole of the discussion with him, he was well qualified to give his opinion.
In fact after Dimes had left, he and I had met Mr. Hugh Delargy, MP, and had a further discussion about my decision to travel to Dublin. There was no
misapprehension whatsoever as to my motives, and I can safely say that either of these two gentlemen would be prepared to confirm that my sole purpose was to further the ends of justice. This being so, it should surely be obvious, even to the most obtuse, that my actions, however unwise from the point of professional etiquette, could never be described as 'disgraceful.'
In conclusion, may I say that I have in my posses- sion, and will ever cherish, a letter from an eminent High Court judge and former chairman of the Bar Council in which he says that despite all that hap- pened his home is always open to me and my family. Would such a supremely honourable man be likely to receive someone who was a disgrace to his profes- sion?—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
