Dissillusioned by the legal system

Mightytwo

I've reregistered as my usual poster name is too easily identifiable.

I'm not looking for legal advice but want to share my experience of the Irish court system

First off I have to commend the Gardai's help given to me.

A nit of background a few months ago on our way home from a night out myself and my friend were subjected to a serious assault. We in no invited this assault upon ourselves. We were minding our own business on our way home. My injuries were minimal I was also threatened with rape. I'm female my friend male. My friends injuries were alot more serious requiring three weeks off of work. He was kicked and boxed repeatedly by a gang of 5 lads. We could only identify one of the lads. We reported the assault to the guards immediately who couldn't have being more helpful or sympathetic

We made our statements a few days later, photos were taken of injuries sustained

Fast forward 6 months we are asked to attend the court hearing.
Both my friend and I got annual leave to attend the court.. On the day the accused was up for 8 different charges one of which was our assault. We learned that he has 30 previous convictions.

At no time were myself or my friend invited to give an account of what happened on that night. Instead the accused solicitor spoke for him making out that the incident was little more than a minor row between us all. Bare in mind we didn't engage with these lads before they started assaulting us. The solicitor also stated that all is well with us now as the accused as since apologised to us which is a blatant lie. We haven't seem or heard from him since the incident.

This chap got a few hours community service a ver small fine so basically a slap on the wrists.

The one who did wrong was afforded more rights than we were.

It appeared the judge didn't read our statements (which were emotionally painful to make) didn't look at the photographic evidence of injuries sustained but instead chose to believe a scumbag who has a record as long as my arm

I left the court extremely upset and angry.

To end this rant (sorry )

It was mine and my friends first time to step foot in a court room yesterday. We are upstanding tax paying law abiding citizens. I can definitely say that if I have the misfortune to be subjected to a crime again I will think long and hard before reporting and pursuing it.

Just to reiterate I in no way wayblame the Gardai firwhat happened. I actually feel so sorry fir them having first had experienced what they are up against

Thanks for reading, feels good to get that off oy chest
Sorry for any mistakes on my phone.

MagicSean

i take it your attacker pleaded guilty to a section 2 assault. Did he get anything harsher for the other charges?

Mightytwo

Hi k mac thanks for your reply.

Yes he pleaded guilty but kinda made it seem as it was no big deal through his solicitor. Ho made it out as if it were a street brawl!!

All in all he got a couple of hundred hours community service fir all if the charges and a very very small fine. You'll understand I don't want to go into too much detail on here


I just feel so sorry got the gardai they do their best only for a mockery to be made of the system.

MagicSean

It is annoying but as a repeat offender he will eventually come up against a judge who will give him a shock. It is a long road ahead.

johnnyskeleton

What outcome would you have been happy with?

Mightytwo

Tbh it's not about the outcome it's about the victims being given a voice. We honestly felt like we were gagged. The way he made it out was we were as bad as him. Ie by being involved in a street fight which neither of us would ever engage in.

Ken.

Correct me if i'm wrong legal heads, but could you pursue a civil case against him for damages and lost earnings. you might not get much but you'd get your say in court.

johnnyskeleton

Right well the injured party is entitled to give evidence for the purposes of sentencing. It's unfortunate that you didn't know this but you could have asked the Garda about it. You could have also informed the gardai of the lies.

Mightytwo

At no time were we offered to give evidence but I don't blame the gardai for this as they weren't given an opportunity to speak either

My friend had medical expenses exceeding €400 this is the reality of the situation this isn't including the loss of wages for his time recrubiating sp? It certainly doesnt include mental stress!!

I had reservations about providing evidence when the gardai specifically asked us too for fear of revenge but I did it to maybe save the next person from a repeat unprovoked attack.

The next time I won't bother!!!!

blueythebear

Mightytwo wrote: »

At no time were we offered to give evidence but I don't blame the gardai for this as they weren't given an opportunity to speak either

My friend had medical expenses exceeding €400 this is the reality of the situation this isn't including the loss of wages for his time recrubiating sp? It certainly doesnt include mental stress!!

I had reservations about providing evidence when the gardai specifically asked us too for fear of revenge but I did it to maybe save the next person from a repeat unprovoked attack.

The next time I won't bother!!!!

Your friend can make a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal for his lost wages and his medical expenses...

source

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Right well the injured party is entitled to give evidence for the purposes of sentencing. It's unfortunate that you didn't know this but you could have asked the Garda about it. You could have also informed the gardai of the lies.

Once a plea has been entered, the judge doesn't want to hear evidence from the injured parties, they usually listen to the facts of the case, given by either the prosecuting Inspector/states solicitor. Then listen to mitigating circumstances from the defence and decide on the punishment.

Many judges believe this is better for the injured parties as they don't have to relive what can have been a harrowing incident in front of a packed courtroom.

Kosseegan

victim impact evidence is rarely heard in the District Court. Quite often the Court is busy and things are just pushed through. The guard should have been asked to give an outline of the facts and any evidence relating to apologies should have been connfirmed by the guard.

podge3

Unfortunately, the average Joe will not get any kind of justice from the charade that is the Irish legal system.

Anyone who has attended court will realise that its all theatrics between the legal sides. The usual outcome is that scumbag gets off to offend again and get more legal aid, while our learned friends in the legal system are very well paid for their efforts.

IMHO, the legal system in this country prevents any kind of justice. Its not fit for purpose - in fact its only purpose seems to be to fill the pockets of solicitors and barristers.

johnnyskeleton

foinse wrote: »

Once a plea has been entered, the judge doesn't want to hear evidence from the injured parties, they usually listen to the facts of the case, given by either the prosecuting Inspector/states solicitor. Then listen to mitigating circumstances from the defence and decide on the punishment.

Kosseegan wrote:

victim impact evidence is rarely heard in the District Court. Quite often the Court is busy and things are just pushed through. The guard should have been asked to give an outline of the facts and any evidence relating to apologies should have been connfirmed by the guard.

Whether a judge wants to hear it or not and whether it is common or rare don't matter, they have to hear it by law on application:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0006/sec0005.html#sec5

Where a court is determining the sentence to be imposed on a person for an offence to which this section applies, the court shall, upon application by the person in respect of whom such offence was committed, hear the evidence of the person in respect of whom the offence was committed as to the effect of the offence on such person upon being requested to do so.

foinse wrote:

Many judges believe this is better for the injured parties as they don't have to relive what can have been a harrowing incident in front of a packed courtroom.

That's utterly irrelevant to the OP's complaint. Whether other injured parties do or do not want to give evidence does not matter. The OP here wanted to give evidence and it is unfortunate that she didn't know her rights or speak up about it.

I know the OP doesn't want to blame the gardai, and I know that the gardai don't want to take the blame themselves. After all, it is much easier to blame a faceless system or the judge who sits above the rest of the court than it is to blame the gardai in court.

But nevertheless it is not a failure of the court or justice system so much as a feature of the underfunded prosecution system. Whether this should be corrected by more garda training to make them more sympathetic to victims of crime and to explain their rights to them, or whether it should involve a system of prosecution solicitors/counsel appearing in every court is a matter of preference and cost.

But it is fairly clear that a judge who decides a case on the facts before him cannot be blamed because the prosecution don't adduce facts in relation to the impact on the victim, and it is abundantly clear that the defence solicitor cannot be blamed for representing his client's best interests.

The idea that the OP doesn't blame the gardai because they weren't given an opportunity to speak either is a nonsense. They are entitled to stand up to a judge. Arguably, much of what is perceived by the public as a bias towards the accused is really down to the fact that defence solicitors and counsel are much more prepared to stand up to a judge than gardai and prosecution solicitors are.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The idea that the OP doesn't blame the gardai because they weren't given an opportunity to speak either is a nonsense. They are entitled to stand up to a judge.

+1 If the judge didn't know that the accused had carried out an unprovoked assault which left the OP's friend out of work for three weeks then it is the fault of the prosecuting Garda for not bringing that to the judge's attention.

When someone pleads guilty the Garda reads out the previous convictions and the prosecuting Garda is expected to outline the details of the crimes e.g. in the case of burglaries the value of the items stolen and in the case of assaults the nature of the assault and what injuries if any were caused by the assault.

It sounds to me like the Garda was asleep standing up when this case was dealt with.

detective

I have to say I agree with the previous two posts. Its the defence's job to defend and the prosecutors job to prosecute. A Judge must be 100% impartial. Was it in Dublin or somewhere else... was it a Garda or a Garda officer prosecuting?

edanto

I too feel that the Garda should have said a lot more during the case!

It wasn't up to the judge to ask you to make a statement - you had already made the statement to the Garda and it was up to them to co-ordinate with the prosecution solicitor and ensure that your statement, or a summary of it, was presented to the court.

I'm very sorry to hear what happened to you and while most of my anger is directed at the scumbag that caused all this, I do feel that you were let down by your solicitor and the Garda and it might be an idea to bring it up with them.

If you discover that they feel they didn't nothing wrong, it might be an idea to formalise the complaint in the hope of giving the next person in your situation a louder voice.

Good luck with getting over this and I hope you can both put it behind you in time.

FreudianSlippers

podge3 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the average Joe will not get any kind of justice from the charade that is the Irish legal system.

Anyone who has attended court will realise that its all theatrics between the legal sides. The usual outcome is that scumbag gets off to offend again and get more legal aid, while our learned friends in the legal system are very well paid for their efforts.

IMHO, the legal system in this country prevents any kind of justice. Its not fit for purpose - in fact its only purpose seems to be to fill the pockets of solicitors and barristers.

You're obviously not well informed about the amount paid out for doing legal aid work.

I commend my colleagues that do primarily criminal work because they are doing it for peanuts.

Offy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're obviously not well informed about the amount paid out for doing legal aid work.

I commend my colleagues that do primarily criminal work because they are doing it for peanuts.

I disagree.

FreudianSlippers

Offy wrote: »

I disagree.

Care to elaborate? The amounts being paid IMO are very low for the work done.

I've actually never done legal aid work, but I do have a few friends down in the CCJ full-time and I believe what they have told me about the amounts.

newmug

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What outcome would you have been happy with?

Well whatever his first three convictions were, he should have been jailed for ten years on the fourth. Then this never would have happened.

If this assault was the very first conviction this scumbag had, it should have been treated as attempted murder, or GBH at least. 10 years would do nicely.

The "justice" system in this country is tragic.

johnnyskeleton

newmug wrote: »

If this assault was the very first conviction this scumbag had, it should have been treated as attempted murder, or GBH at least. 10 years would do nicely.

On that I couldn't agree with you more. Every violent crime should be dealt with as an attempted murder before the central criminal court.

edanto

In theory, are there any options for someone in a situation like this to either seek a review of the sentence or take a civil case? Or is this the end of the road?

podge3

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're obviously not well informed about the amount paid out for doing legal aid work.

Actually I don't know the current rates of legal aid work but I'm sure your friends are not on the breadline.

Are SC's still able to command several thousand € for a court appearance? Must be difficult to live on that :rolleyes:. Solicitors are obviously paid differently but I know several solicitors who do free legal aid and they seem to have a fairly affluent lifestyle. A few figures from the Irish Examiner:

IrishExaminer wrote:

The service, first introduced in 1962, costs more than €50 million annually, with the bulk of expenditure going on fees fordefence lawyers. Costs have soared in the past five years, from €26.7m in 2004 to in excess of €55m last year.

IrishExaminer wrote:

Three criminal defence solicitors made more than €1m each in legal aid fees last year, as the cost of the scheme soared to a record high. Overall, solicitors shared in a total of €33.3m, while barristers earned €19.6m.

The top-earning solicitor last year was Dublin-based Michael J Staines at just under €1.4m. He was followed by John M Quinn at €1.18m, the top-earning woman solicitor Yvonne Bambury at €1.1m and Cork-based Frank Buttimer at €945,760.

Some 38 solicitors earned more than €200,000 each in criminal legal aid fees while 84 made more than €100,000.

The highest paid barrister last year was Brian McInerney, at €437,479, followed by Luigi Rea at €369,952 and Blaise O’Carroll at €362,149. Twenty three barristers were paid more than €200,000 under the scheme last year.

Poor darlings - they must be finding it very difficult to live.

The legal system - both criminal and civil - is one of the reasons that this country is gone down the tubes. Its very difficult to get a criminal conviction and we are an extremely litigious society. There was huge opposition - and still is - to the setting up of PIAB because solicitors thought they could no longer fleece insurance companies.

FreudianSlippers

podge3 wrote: »

Actually I don't know the current rates of legal aid work but I'm sure your friends are not on the breadline.

I'll just stop you there. Clearly you know nothing about the situation so maybe you should refrain from commenting any further on the issue.

You're complaining about 23 barristers making "too much money"... do you even know how many people are down at the bar? How many are coming down next year alone?

podge3

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'll just stop you there. Clearly you know nothing about the situation so maybe you should refrain from commenting any further on the issue.

You're complaining about 23 barristers making "too much money"... do you even know how many people are down at the bar? How many are coming down next year alone?

I'm not complaining about 23 barristers.

Granted, 23 barristers were paid more than €200,000 under the scheme last year but some 38 solicitors earned more than €200,000 each in criminal legal aid fees while 84 made more than €100,000. I'm just observing that these payments are exorbitant.

This is gone completely off topic now but I've been around the courts long enough to know what goes on in the system and how solicitors & barristers can milk it for all its worth.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the actual FLA fees are? I used to know some of the prices back the the £ days but I'm sure those figures are long out of date now.

McCrack

podge3 wrote: »

Actually I don't know the current rates of legal aid work but I'm sure your friends are not on the breadline.

Are SC's still able to command several thousand € for a court appearance? Must be difficult to live on that :rolleyes:. Solicitors are obviously paid differently but I know several solicitors who do free legal aid and they seem to have a fairly affluent lifestyle. A few figures from the Irish Examiner:





Poor darlings - they must be finding it very difficult to live.

The legal system - both criminal and civil - is one of the reasons that this country is gone down the tubes. Its very difficult to get a criminal conviction and we are an extremely litigious society. There was huge opposition - and still is - to the setting up of PIAB because solicitors thought they could no longer fleece insurance companies.

This and other comments you have made tell me that you really haven't a clue what you are talking about.

You are just making inflammatory populist statements with no substance.

If you can post sound argument I could take you seriously.

FreudianSlippers

For Counsel a bail application is €100 AFAIK and I think they get €26 for basic appearances. Like I said, I don't do any criminal work at the moment at all so I don't have first hand knowledge of dealing with legal aid (although at least legal aid is paying out anything... can't say the same about civil work at the moment).

The rates are all there in legislation for you to look up.

Have you ever considered that it's not the legal profession's fault that the country is spending so much on legal aid? Perhaps it's the sheer volume of people we're giving legal aid to?

I don't see how you can say barristers down in the CCJ are "milking" anything when quite a few of them are struggling to get by day to day on the money they make from legal aid.


Also, I'm not bringing anything off topic - you're the one that accused the legal profession of essentially being corrupt and that is why "justice isn't done" or whatever.

McCrack

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/committees/criminal/Fees_CircuitCourt.pdf


http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/committees/criminal/s50CJA2010.pdf

Fees payable.

FreudianSlippers

McCrack wrote: »

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/committees/criminal/Fees_CircuitCourt.pdf


http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/committees/criminal/s50CJA2010.pdf

Fees payable.

Really quite a low rate and that is assuming that Counsel will be entitled to the entire brief fee. Seems to be usually charged on a piecemeal basis from what I hear.
For the amount of work that goes in on all parties, the work is being done at an entirely reasonable rate IMO.

detective

What's the difference between brief, refresher and sentence?

What are the rates for criminal district court?

detective

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/si/0136.html

If these are the rates then they are massive. I cant see how anybody here can justify them.

podge3

McCrack wrote: »

This and other comments you have made tell me that you really haven't a clue what you are talking about.

You are just making inflammatory populist statements with no substance.

If you can post sound argument I could take you seriously.

McCrack wrote: »

url]http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/committees/criminal/Fees_CircuitCourt.pdf[/url]


http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/committees/criminal/s50CJA2010.pdf

Fees payable.

detective wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/si/0136.html

If these are the rates then they are massive. I cant see how anybody here can justify them.

Thanks for those figures, which I think are unjustifiable and unsustainable.

I am not trying to make inflammatory populist statements. I am simply stating that the professional fees paid to solicitors and barristers are excessive.

podge3

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Have you ever considered that it's not the legal profession's fault that the country is spending so much on legal aid? Perhaps it's the sheer volume of people we're giving legal aid to?

There is no doubt you have a point there. Some judge recently commented on FLA being given to someone with 50 previous convictions.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't see how you can say barristers down in the CCJ are "milking" anything when quite a few of them are struggling to get by day to day on the money they make from legal aid.

I think the figures now posted would cast doubt on whether solicitors/barristers are struggling to get by.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Also, I'm not bringing anything off topic - you're the one that accused the legal profession of essentially being corrupt and that is why "justice isn't done" or whatever.

I didn't accuse you of taking the thread off topic. I just said that it was gone off topic.

And I didn't say the legal professionals were corrupt - I said the legal system was not fit for purpose but that many of the professionals were making a very good living out of it.

Offy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Care to elaborate? The amounts being paid IMO are very low for the work done.

I've actually never done legal aid work, but I do have a few friends down in the CCJ full-time and I believe what they have told me about the amounts.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfauojgbgbau/rss2/

Some 38 solicitors earned more than €200,000 each in criminal legal aid fees while 84 made more than €100,000.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfauojgbgbau/rss2/#ixzz1JJviinlo

I read in the Westmeath Independent that one solicitor in Athlone made over €0.5m in one year alone. I am an engineer with eight years training and sixteen years experience. I will never earn a fraction of that amount. To me it seems excessive to say the least. Im not trying to claim that every solicitor makes that much but some do.

Offy

I would like to add that the firm of solicitors I employ at the moment are very reasonable re rates. Like every profession some abuse the system.

dazza21ie

There have been quite a few rumblings recently which suggest that legal aid as we know it will be no more. It is one of the areas which the Government is looking at cutting back on. It has already had two cuts (not sure about the %) under the previous Government.

In relation to the OP's post the fault must lie with the prosecution which was probably done by a Garda Inspector. The defence solicitor's job is to try and get the best outcome for his client. If the information which he was stating was incorect then he should have been contradicted.

On an off note I think the prosecution District Court matters would be better served if a state appointed solicitor with more legal and advocacy experience handled the cases. In most cases the Inspectors can hold their own but they usually are found wanting in cases were legal points are being argued.

FreudianSlippers

podge3 wrote: »

I think the figures now posted would cast doubt on whether solicitors/barristers are struggling to get by.

I disagree there. Figures were posted for brief fees for circuit court level which many barristers don't see the full amount of.

I'm just saying that the point is very few barristers are making the big bucks down off criminal legal aid and the majority are just getting by or are struggling to get by.

The figures don't show that.

Perhaps a criminal practising colleague on here can tell me otherwise, but the word on the ground is that a lot are making minimum wage at the end of the day or less.

Offy wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfauojgbgbau/rss2/

I read in the Westmeath Independent that one solicitor in Athlone made over €0.5m in one year alone. I am an engineer with eight years training and sixteen years experience. I will never earn a fraction of that amount. To me it seems excessive to say the least. Im not trying to claim that every solicitor makes that much but some do.

Firstly, that's a repost of earlier and has already been discussed (see above).

Secondly, are you saying they made 500,000 from legal aid? or from all income?

Solicitors earn more than barristers, I'm not disagreeing with that. But for the amount of work they do perhaps they deserve it?

Offy wrote: »

I would like to add that the firm of solicitors I employ at the moment are very reasonable re rates. Like every profession some abuse the system.

Rates for civil legal services are wholly separate from those of criminal legal aid!

Kosseegan

The figure quoted for earnings to a solicitor is the gross sum paid. In most firms one solicitor is nominated on all the legal aid applications. If there are 10 solicitors in a firm, one name is used as nominee and they are all paid a salary out of the total earned.

Reloc8

Genuine question to which I would appreciate as many answers as possible - what do people think is a fair hourly rate of pay for a barrister engaged under the criminal legal aid scheme to defend a client before a jury in the Circuit Criminal Court in a case which is neither highly complex or very straightforward, i.e. an average case ?

MagicSean

Reloc8 wrote: »

Genuine question to which I would appreciate as many answers as possible - what do people think is a fair hourly rate of pay for a barrister engaged under the criminal legal aid scheme to defend a client before a jury in the Circuit Criminal Court in a case which is neither highly complex or very straightforward, i.e. an average case ?

Three times the minimum wage per hour of background work done. Five times the minimum wage per hour of court work including travel time.

detective

Reloc8 wrote: »

Genuine question to which I would appreciate as many answers as possible - what do people think is a fair hourly rate of pay for a barrister engaged under the criminal legal aid scheme to defend a client before a jury in the Circuit Criminal Court in a case which is neither highly complex or very straightforward, i.e. an average case ?

I'd have an issue with anything more than 100 an hour personally but a major cost to the exchequer is solicitors in the district court earning 223 euro for 10 seconds work in requesting a Gary Doyle order for first appearance!!

detective

k_mac wrote: »

Three times the minimum wage per hour of background work done. Five times the minimum wage per hour of court work including travel time.

I don't often disagree with you but a Garda gets 5 times min wage for Sunday OT and I'd expect a barrister to get more for defending a client before a jury.

Kosseegan

How is the amount of background work done calculated? What about overheads? Practitioners have to pay for staff and premises as well as insurance, CPD and membership of the professional body. One Senior Counsel has estimated his outlay at €150k per annum. He needs about 4K a week just to cover his overheads.
One of the reasons that there is no public defender system and prosecution is contracted out is that it would be much more expensive to do it in-house. having full time prosecutors employed directly by the DPp would cost about $250k per annum each. They would also be less productive, insisting on a 40 hour week and time off in lieu of late sittings, travelling time etc.
The reason legal aid costs so much is that there is so much crime and not because there is a rip off by the profession.

MagicSean

detective wrote: »

I don't often disagree with you but a Garda gets 5 times min wage for Sunday OT and I'd expect a barrister to get more for defending a client before a jury.

Sure, if he was defending his client on a Sunday.

MagicSean

Kosseegan wrote: »

How is the amount of background work done calculated? What about overheads? Practitioners have to pay for staff and premises as well as insurance, CPD and membership of the professional body. One Senior Counsel has estimated his outlay at €150k per annum. He needs about 4K a week just to cover his overheads.
One of the reasons that there is no public defender system and prosecution is contracted out is that it would be much more expensive to do it in-house. having full time prosecutors employed directly by the DPp would cost about $250k per annum each. They would also be less productive, insisting on a 40 hour week and time off in lieu of late sittings, travelling time etc.
The reason legal aid costs so much is that there is so much crime and not because there is a rip off by the profession.

Surely the law society should be working towards reducing its members fees and the overall cost of fees to the public. What do they actually do? Professional services are too expensive in this country, be they barristers, solicitors, doctors or accountants and they are usually out of financial reach of the general public.

Kosseegan

Reducing costs to the taxpayer is what is done in the free legal aid scheme. It is much more cost effective than a public defender system. Costs could be reduced by reducing the amount of hanging around which goes on. A practitioner can often spend hours in a court before a simple matter is reached. This is a waste of garda manpower and practitioners time. The statute book could be updated and procedures generally streamlined. There are regularly arguments in court about the Petty Sessions Ireland Act 1851. The Criminal Justice laws are scattered around numerous statutes with a patchwork quilt of amendments. Hours are spent in cases time and again trying to discover what the law is, then arguing it. The same thing happens over and over again. Murder is still mostly a common law offence because our politicians are too lazy to update and redefine the law in a timely fashion.

FreudianSlippers

Reloc8 wrote: »

Genuine question to which I would appreciate as many answers as possible - what do people think is a fair hourly rate of pay for a barrister engaged under the criminal legal aid scheme to defend a client before a jury in the Circuit Criminal Court in a case which is neither highly complex or very straightforward, i.e. an average case ?

An hourly rate isn't really doable though. Realistically barristers do a lot of waiting around for nothing waiting for a case to be called on when they could be doing other work.

I think brief fees are the best scenario. People just don't appreciate how much work barristers do and how little they are paid in comparison to their UK and US counterparts IMO.

code187.2010

A friend of mines brother contested their mothers will and the costs for both sides came to 52,000 which were awarded against the estate this meant everything had to be sold so none of them got a thing.The will was found to be perfect yet the estate had to pay the costs of a bogus case, surely that can't be right.

FreudianSlippers

code187.2010 wrote: »

A friend of mines brother contested their mothers will and the costs for both sides came to 52,000 which were awarded against the estate this meant everything had to be sold so none of them got a thing.The will was found to be perfect yet the estate had to pay the costs of a bogus case, surely that can't be right.

That's an entirely separate matter. That is private civil law and has nothing to do with criminal legal aid.

But the answer to your question is no, something is wrong with that story... for many reasons. A primary one being that if the argument was over such a paltry sum of money solicitors and counsel for both sides would have encouraged settlement to keep costs down. The fact that the will was "perfect" has nothing to do with someone challenging it on the basis that they feel entitled to something for whatever reason.

What I don't understand is the general public's lack of understanding that solicitors and barristers are hired to work for you, the put in a lot of work and hours and at the end people don't want to pay them for these services... as if we should be martyrs and work tirelessly for the people. Is that right? If your friend's brother brought his car to the mechanic and they repaired it or did work would he not expect to pay them?

Now if we can keep this thread on topic. Criminal law and criminal legal aid.

Het-Field

podge3 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the average Joe will not get any kind of justice from the charade that is the Irish legal system.

Anyone who has attended court will realise that its all theatrics between the legal sides. The usual outcome is that scumbag gets off to offend again and get more legal aid, while our learned friends in the legal system are very well paid for their efforts.

IMHO, the legal system in this country prevents any kind of justice. Its not fit for purpose - in fact its only purpose seems to be to fill the pockets of solicitors and barristers.

"Theatrics" are virtually non existent in Irish Courts.
"The Usual Outcome" you proffer is simply populist rhetoric. I would also note that you have not given any evidence to back up you claims of "the usual outcome".

I would like to know what parts of the legal system "prevent any kind of justice", and to what extent is it not "fit for purpose" ? Your statements about the "usual outcome" are not examples of failures in the system.