Welcome, Citizen Mauricio

A brief parable about how Ireland works

Let me introduce you, dear reader, to one Mauricio Coutinho Oliveira, a nice chap from (presumably) Brazil.

Mauricio was up before the courts in Longford this week, albeit not for something that necessarily makes the hairs on your neck stand on end. He hasn’t assaulted somebody or kicked a dog or exposed himself to the local women.

What he’s done is to attempt to rip off his insurance company, a crime that doesn’t seem to me to be unique to any race colour or creed.

He was charged with using a false RSA No Claims Bonus Certificate and deceiving Liberty Insurance into giving him an insurance quote reduced by €1,388.04. His solicitor told the court he had pleaded guilty to deception.

So far, so mundane. Yet as you may have guessed, there’s a complication. What follows comes from the good folks over at Longford Live, and it’s the tale of how the Irish Courts are contriving (rather than actively conspiring) to keep Mauricio’s Irish Citizenship application in good order despite his crime.

We join proceedings here as Mauricio’s solicitor is applying for a second adjournment to allow him to complete his Irish Citizenship application:

“You gave him the opportunity, Judge, to seek an adjournment before sentence to allow him to complete his Irish citizenship.”

Solr Gearty added, “He has progressed that very well and I understand that while it is not granted yet, it is imminent.”

“He has requested one final adjournment.”

In response, Court Sergeant Enda Daly said the State had no difficulty with the request.

Solr Gearty said his client, “greatly values the opportunity that has been given to him, Judge.”

In granting the request, Judge Bernadette Owens listed Coutinho Oliveira to appear before the court on February 16.

This is, I think, an exceptionally illustrative case for the old story of how Ireland works™. We’ve got a cast of characters all working on entirely defensible assumptions, and yet all of them in their own small and unobtrusive way contributing to an outcome that is, I think, a disgrace.

We’ll start with that outcome: sentencing has been deferred, twice, to allow Mauricio to complete his citizenship. Mauricio here may well be a nice fellow, but before he’s even become a citizen, he’s pleaded guilty to deceiving an insurance company to obtain a quote reduced by nearly €1,400.

Now should being a convicted fraudster stop you getting citizenship? My guess is that a referendum on that question wouldn’t be close, if the public had their say. But of course, they don’t.

(It’s actually neither here nor there, by the way, whether you think Mauricio should get citizenship or he shouldn’t. But we should surely all agree that the decision to award or not award citizenship should be made with the fullest and most complete information.)

In any case, the outcome here is to ensure that Mauricio’s citizenship application is completed before he gets any black mark on his record that may - or may not - affect him.

So who’s to blame?

We’ll start with the most innocent character in all of this, who is Mauricio’s solicitor. The solicitor’s job is to obtain the best possible outcome for his client. In this case, he has asked that Mauricio’s sentence should be deferred so that he can complete his citizenship.

So the lawyer has asked for adjournments, twice. The lawyer can’t be blamed for that. It’s literally his job.

Next in the tier of innocence comes – this one might surprise you – the Judge. The Judge has been asked twice for adjournments and twice she has granted them, explicitly on the basis of helping Mauricio become a citizen of a country he has just pleaded guilty to committing deception in.

But of course, the Judge has not received any objection from the State to an adjournment being granted. So there’s not a lot she can do, without doing something extraordinary.

Then we’ve probably the closest thing we have to a villain in the piece: the local guard, who has consented to the adjournments rather than objecting. But then consider his job: he is there to prosecute the deception charge, not to intervene one way or the other in a citizenship award. Do we really think he’d get any thanks, or improve his own life, by standing up and objecting to adjournments here?

No: each of these people may be acting rationally and defensibly in their own interests. And yet nobody in the reported proceedings asks why completing citizenship should be a reason to defer sentence.

Mauricio, presumably, hopes to get his award of citizenship. And then, as soon as he gets it, he will return to court for sentencing.

Whether that sequence will affect the citizenship decision, we do not know. What we do know is that the court has been asked to accommodate it, and the State has no difficulty with the request.

Everyone’s interests have been considered, except the public’s.

Welcome, Citizen Mauricio.