Opinion

Logic of attorney general's argument impeccable

THE Irish News quotes as follows the Attorney General John Larkin commenting on the withdrawal of evidence by two women who had made allegations of sexual abuse: "The attorney general would wish to emphasise that dissatisfaction with the prosecutorial strategy with respect to another case involving the same defendant ought not to lead to the withdrawal of statements in circumstances where the only potential beneficiary from such a course would be the defendant" (November 7).

As a layman, and not a lawyer, it strikes me that the logic of that argument is impeccable.

What sense does it make to withdraw your allegation of sexual abuse (or whatever) because you believe your assailant is also going to be charged with IRA membership (or whatever)? To do so is, as the attorney general puts it, to make the defendant the only potential beneficiary of your withdrawal.

The article also quotes the response to the attorney general's letter by Mr Joe Mulholland, the solicitor for the two women in question. He describes the attorney general's comments as "inappropriate and insensitive". Insensitivity is a matter of opinion. It

is entirely appropriate for the attorney general to comment on such cases.

It is what he is paid for. It is his job. The rest of Mr Mulholland's comments are bluster - politely described by the attorney general's office as "intemperate".

In her long interview in The Irish News (November 7) Ms Cahill refuses to fully explain why she withdrew her evidence. The fact is that the man she accuses remains innocent until proven guilty.

Is that an insensitive comment? It is certainly not inappropriate.

NIALL CUSACK

Belfast BT9