Free Legal Aid - John O'Mahoney

Royal Legend

Interesting, John O'Mahoney on Morning Ireland this morning saying that the funding into legal aid for convicted criminals needs to be looked at.

Now I am not saying he does not have a point but....

When asked about figures, he had none, in fact his argument was based on no fact whatsoever, bar that he had heard of one individual that had received legal aid 12 times in one year!

So, yet again, another member of the government spouting sh1t, get his name on the airwaves, with his " I am standing up for the good folk of this country"
bull****e, against these lowlife scum"

I am sure there are people who abuse free legal aid and I am sure there are even more that don't. same way as there are politicians that actually give a fkuc as against the majority who don't.


Seriously makes me angry and worse still RTE and the likes go along with the bull and don't ask the real questions, like, Mr O'Mahoney, whay are you wasting air time with stupid soundbites....

Teyla Emmagan

Yeah, he had no figures. Just bizarre, 20 minutes reading that 'this week in the courts' column in the irish times could have given him a dozen examples. I think the idea has some merit, but way to come across like a half baked eejit.

PogMoThoin

We're electing the wrong people folks, for the wrong reasons. He was elected because he was a good football manager FFS.

He's an ass, he struggled to teach first years Geography, how people ever thought he'd make a good politician is beyond me. He has one train of thought, ignorance (hence his teacher nickname was "savage"), which has got him where he is today. It's true what they say, politics is show business for ugly people

CreepingDeath

Royal Legend wrote: »

Interesting, John O'Mahoney on Morning Ireland this morning saying that the funding into legal aid for convicted criminals needs to be looked at.

So if it's there first offence, they get free legal aid because they're not convicted... but after that they don't?

The other criminal element is the solicitor fees.
How many tens of millions do those tribunals cost in legal fees?
I remember someone saying some solicitors became millionaires on them.

Royal Legend

Its like the government has a conveyor belt of soundbites that they get different TD's to rattle out every week, by the way all of the soundbites are targetted towards saying the right things to the common masses, whereas in the background they continue to screw us without vaseline.

That hairy fianna falla in limerick said as much about Joan Burton yesterday, as she puts out little titbits of info on the same subject without really saying anything. When she was confronted yesterday evening on the radio, she still squirmed out of actually stating her opinion.

Royal Legend

CreepingDeath wrote: »

So if it's there first offence, they get free legal aid because they're not convicted... but after that they don't?

The other criminal element is the solicitor fees.
How many tens of millions do those tribunals cost in legal fees?
I remember someone saying some solicitors became millionaires on them.

My argument is not with the rights and wrongs of the system, my point is that John O'Mahoney knows as much as I do about the workings of same, (which is sweet fkuc all) but yet trys to spout his "man of the people" rhetoric on the airwaves as if he is an expert, when he is not.

There is some PR cnut in the government press office, that must have a list and a rota of people to spout ****e every couple of days.

Hey John, you are on Morning Ireland tomorrow, err, speak about why scumbags get free legal aid and that it should be stopped. Tell them its costing the taxpayers, ya de ya, you know the drill.

Boombastic

Monday, December 10, 2012 Irish Examiner

According to figures supplied by Alan Shatter, the justice minister, the cost to date in 2012 is €46.16m which, according to Mr Shatter, “represents a welcome decrease of approximately 10% over the same period in 2011”. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................After cuts to their fees, senior counsel currently receive a brief fee of €1,716 for taking on cases in the circuit court and a refresher fee of €858.

A brief fee covers preparatory work and the first day in court and for each subsequent day, a barrister receives the ‘refresher’ fee.

In relation to murder cases in the Central Criminal Court, senior counsel receive a brief fee of €7,127 and a refresher fee of €1,562.


^^^Interesting Article on this. It is definitely something which needs to be looked at.

Royal Legend

Boombastic wrote: »

Monday, December 10, 2012 Irish Examiner

According to figures supplied by Alan Shatter, the justice minister, the cost to date in 2012 is €46.16m which, according to Mr Shatter, “represents a welcome decrease of approximately 10% over the same period in 2011”. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................After cuts to their fees, senior counsel currently receive a brief fee of €1,716 for taking on cases in the circuit court and a refresher fee of €858.

A brief fee covers preparatory work and the first day in court and for each subsequent day, a barrister receives the ‘refresher’ fee.

In relation to murder cases in the Central Criminal Court, senior counsel receive a brief fee of €7,127 and a refresher fee of €1,562.


^^^Interesting Article on this. It is definitely something which needs to be looked at.

Sure Jonno is on the case now, he will sort it

suicide_circus

Remember free legal aid isnt free at all, YOU pay for it.

Kristopherus

Well, he was on TV yesterday where he asked the Minister for details of the criteria for the FLA scheme. In the course of his question, he referred to one case of a scumbag, who had an income of €41,000 from social welfare, availing of free legal aid on over 100 occasions:mad:

Boombastic

Kristopherus wrote: »

Well, he was on TV yesterday where he asked the Minister for details of the criteria for the FLA scheme. In the course of his question, he referred to one case of a scumbag, who had an income of €41,000 from social welfare, availing of free legal aid on over 100 occasions:mad:

€41,000 from social welfare :eek:

Kristopherus

Boombastic wrote: »

€41,000 from social welfare :eek:

Yep. He was a member of THAT ethnic group, so there was a rake of kids there. Mind you, he supplemented that income by drug dealing:(

Royal Legend

Boombastic wrote: »

€41,000 from social welfare :eek:

Do you think maybe Jonno missed the obvious question?

But then again €41 k is is a drop in the ocean for our fine politicians, sure they nearly claim that and more in expenses :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Muckie

Kristopherus wrote: »

Yep. He was a member of THAT ethnic group, so there was a rake of kids there. Mind you, he supplemented that income by drug dealing:(

Careful now.....the PC Brigade get a whiff of this and the cavalry will arrive. :pac:

Boombastic

Muckie wrote: »

Careful now.....the PC Brigade get a whiff of this and the cavalry will arrive. :pac:

They're mounting their horses as we speak :pac:

kupus

Free legal aid is a money spinner for lawyers and judges, its a sham.

Take a read through any local newspaper reporting court cases in Ireland and a lot of these scumbags have numerous convictions behind them already.

Just look in galway a guy murdered a swiss student a few years ago who should never have been out in the 1st place.

Yet the cops cant do anything about it, as the lawyers and judges have it stitched up between themselves.
IF that was any other business it would be called a monopoly.
and it would be frowned upon.

DEFTLEFTHAND

kupus wrote: »

Free legal aid is a money spinner for lawyers and judges, its a sham.

Take a read through any local newspaper reporting court cases in Ireland and a lot of these scumbags have numerous convictions behind them already.

Just look in galway a guy murdered a swiss student a few years ago who should never have been out in the 1st place.

Yet the cops cant do anything about it, as the lawyers and judges have it stitched up between themselves.
IF that was any other business it would be called a monopoly.
and it would be frowned upon.

Is the medical card a scam between doctors as well. That's the system, if you can't afford legal representation there's a scheme in place to provide it.

kupus

so a scumbag needs to go to court again with repeat free legal aid even though he has 20 convictions already.
My question is WTF is he doing out in the 1st place?

eg
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-to-be-sentenced-for-face-slash-attack-29074353.html
52 previous convictions. WTF like?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/burglars-caught-trying-to-drink-their-way-through-120k-haul-29064665.html
This guy has fire arm offences, arson and imprisonment for his previous deeds, yet he's out and about burglering away. No bother to him.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The sentencing needs to be looked at certainly, you mentioned the Swiss girl case for instance, I know that Barry animal killed a young man from Roscrea in Galway back in 96. He wasn't fit to be released but was because he went to prison on a manslaughter charge.

The problem with legal aid is what happens if you cut it off after a certain number of offences? A Rights issue will emerge.

Bloody*Mary

Royal Legend wrote: »

Do you think maybe Jonno missed the obvious question?

But then again €41 k is is a drop in the ocean for our fine politicians, sure they nearly claim that and more in expenses :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

not too sure what your argument is but I listened to Mr OMahoney this morning and he emphasised several time that this legal aid system needs to be 'looked into'.

Now I can only speak for myself but as a taxpayer, but I would see merit in examining the free legal aid system and how it pertains to people who are granted it following several convictions.

There needs to be much greater probity and diligence in this area to ensure the taxpayer is not being taken for a ride here.

Now i don't see any great controversy in that view,and as a taxpayer who is hard pressed I would say well done to John for bringing the matter up.

He WAS short of figures this morning, and that was regrettable,however it doesn't lessen the point and the issue in hand.

In my opinion, the vast majority of the taxpaying public would welcome some scrutiny on this.

9959

Boombastic wrote: »

They're mounting their horses as we speak :pac:

Right, I've just dismounted (ooh missus).

I heard that interview this morning, O'Mahony was all over the shop, and really hadn't a clear or coherent proposal to put forward.

For me the subtext to his garbled analysis of the legal aid system was:

In order to raise/maintain my public profile with my constituents, I'd like to to say something vaguely reactionary against crime, don't really know what I'm talking about here, but sounding gravely concerned is all important in these matters.
The next election is going to be a tough one for the likes of me, so best to get out of the starting gate, now.
What better way, than saying: "Crime, recidivism, lawers, free legal - aid, I'm 'agin' it..... or something.

UDP

If someone calls for something to be looked into then they should compile evidence to back their assertion that it should be looked into otherwise their argument holds no water. Very unprofessional by Mr O'Mahoney. Would be turned off voting for someone who does that.

space_man

if you cant afford legal representation, then you cant afford to be breaking the law.
why we should be paying for some scummer's legal defence is beyond me.

ScumLord

Royal Legend wrote: »

My argument is not with the rights and wrongs of the system, my point is that John O'Mahoney knows as much as I do about the workings of same, (which is sweet fkuc all) but yet trys to spout his "man of the people" rhetoric on the airwaves as if he is an expert, when he is not.

Is there not a bit of pot/kettle/black in that statement.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The problem with legal aid is what happens if you cut it off after a certain number of offences? A Rights issue will emerge.

It's impossible in this country, you can't defend yourself so you have to have a solicitor. The court system doesn't work properly unless all the solicitors get their cut.

That's all the law system is to me now, a group people prying their way into every aspect of society so that they can take a cut of any worth at the detriment of everything else.

Death and Taxes

Kristopherus wrote: »

Yep. He was a member of THAT ethnic group, so there was a rake of kids there. Mind you, he supplemented that income by drug dealing:(

Its ok to say white settled banker, but actually you are wrong to describe them as an ethnic group, they're not!

Robbo

space_man wrote: »

if you cant afford legal representation, then you cant afford to be breaking the law.
why we should be paying for some scummer's legal defence is beyond me.

It's that pesky constitution again.

Honestly, when you're guaranteeing a "fair trial in due course of law", you know the PC liberal bleeding heart brigade have gone too far.

Death and Taxes

space_man wrote: »

if you cant afford legal representation, then you cant afford to be breaking the law.
why we should be paying for some scummer's legal defence is beyond me.

Ever heard of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
At the point at which FLA is granted by a judge, having recieved a certificate of means, the person before him'her is innocent in the eyes of the law.

Royal Legend

9959 wrote: »

Right, I've just dismounted (ooh missus).

I heard that interview this morning, O'Mahony was all over the shop, and really hadn't a clear or coherent proposal to put forward.

For me the subtext to his garbled analysis of the legal aid system was:

In order to raise/maintain my public profile with my constituents, I'd like to to say something vaguely reactionary against crime, don't really know what I'm talking about here, but sounding gravely concerned is all important in these matters.
The next election is going to be a tough one for the likes of me, so best to get out of the starting gate, now.
What better way, than saying: "Crime, recidivism, lawers, free legal - aid, I'm 'agin' it..... or something.

^This

AlekSmart

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Ever heard of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
At the point at which FLA is granted by a judge, having recieved a certificate of means, the person before him'her is innocent in the eyes of the law.

All so Logical and in total compliance with common sense and decency....

Mind you,occasionally I do ponder upon such certification....

WileyCoyote:Its ok to say white settled banker, but actually you are wrong to describe them as an ethnic group, they're not!

This on the face of it,looks like yet another Merchant Banker out to establish his rights.....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/four-years-for-man-who-drove-wrong-way-up-motorway-slip-during-garda-chase-29081578.html

Connors had been in a high speed chase with gardaí after officers set out that day to arrest him on foot of a number of outstanding bench warrants.

The pursuit lasted about two hours and came to an end when he crashed into the couple’s car. He had just performed a U-turn on the motorway and was driving the wrong way up a slip road on the M50 near the Naas Road.

Connors fled the scene after the accident and “lay low” for a number of hours before gardaí spotted him nearby in a taxi.

Gardaí then chased Connors on foot across inbound and outbound lanes of the M7 before he was caught in wasteland and arrested.

Connors has 47 previous convictions, mostly for road traffic offences and was under a number of disqualification orders

It would be...erm....illuminating to have an idea of just how much Legal Representation has cost Mr Banker Connors over his career thus far,and particularly,how much of it has come from his own means....or is that a churlish question for a net contributor to ask..?

space_man

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Ever heard of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
At the point at which FLA is granted by a judge, having recieved a certificate of means, the person before him'her is innocent in the eyes of the law.

of course these scummers must be presumed innocent. no body is disputing that!
what i am disputing is my and other taxpayers having to pay for them to prove it.
let them pay for it out of their social.
maybe then we might have less crime being committed.

AlekSmart

space_man wrote: »

Of course these scummers must be presumed innocent.
Nobody is disputing that!
What i am disputing is my and other taxpayers having to pay for them to prove it.
Let them pay for it out of their social.
Maybe then we might have less crime being committed.

It's nothing really to do with the presumption of anything.

It's about the ease which recidivist offenders and serious criminal types can access the FLAS.

It urgently needs attention,with some focus being paid to the number of previous Convictions for particular crimes the applicant already has.

In addition the type of Crininal Activity equally requires some inspection as if I (as a system funder) am being constantly required to fund a Legal Defence Team for some individual with 40+ previous CONVICTIONS,then I suggest we need to rething this persons right-of-access to further FLA.

I've no issue with providing a legal representative for any accused in need of it,but it's quite clear the system is being run for the benefit of a growing number of Proffessional Claimants....;)

space_man

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's nothing really to do with the presumption of anything.

It's about the ease which recidivist offenders and serious criminal types can access the FLAS.

It urgently needs attention,with some focus being paid to the number of previous Convictions for particular crimes the applicant already has.

In addition the type of Crininal Activity equally requires some inspection as if I (as a system funder) am being constantly required to fund a Legal Defence Team for some individual with 40+ previous CONVICTIONS,then I suggest we need to rething this persons right-of-access to further FLA.

I've no issue with providing a legal representative for any accused in need of it,but it's quite clear the system is being run for the benefit of a growing number of Proffessional Claimants....;)

absolutely the presumption of innocence is enshrined in the Constitution i believe, so that's not up for dispute.

some of these scum know more about the system than a lot of solcs.
it seems to me that we are rewarding/subsidising repeat offenders.

kupus

AlekSmart wrote: »

I've no issue with providing a legal representative for any accused in need of it,but it's quite clear the system is being run for the benefit of a growing number of Proffessional Claimants....;)

As far as I see its run for the benefit of the professionals (in this case lawyers.) unlimited amount of scummers needing free legal aid makes it a gravy train job.
Jobs for the boys and all that.

This effects everybody on this island whether you like to believe it or not.

increased home insurance, psychological strain, etc.

ffs I read in the indo a few days ago about a rapist who got out cos he paid victim 75000 euro and is now living the good life in dubai on holiday.

We can all laugh at other countries that have stupid rulings about men being jailed for drinking baileys, but from what I read everyday in irish courts makes me sick to the stomach, a

space_man

i commend John O'Mahony for raising this issue.
clearly the system is being milked/abused (by solcs. AND scum alike) for the benefit of a tiny minority.
the state aka you & me the taxpayer can save serious money on this, if proper reforms are introduced.

hopefully we will see some action, but i'm sure a constitutional challenge will not be far behind.

9959

space_man wrote: »

of course these scummers must be presumed innocent. no body is disputing that!
what i am disputing is my and other taxpayers having to pay for them to prove it.
let them pay for it out of their social.
maybe then we might have less crime being committed.

Earth calling.

"pay for it out of their social"

Our learned friends 'don't come cheap', so we'd certainly have fewer trials, and a trial by judge and jury in a court of law would become the exclusive prerogative of those who could afford to pay for a legal defense from their own pockets.
Otherwise.....GUILTY by virtue of socio/economic status.

That type of thing?

space_man

9959 wrote: »

Earth calling.

"pay for it out of their social"

Our learned friends 'don't come cheap', so we'd certainly have fewer trials, and a trial by judge and jury in a court of law would become the exclusive prerogative of those who could afford to pay for a legal defense from their own pockets.
Otherwise.....GUILTY by virtue of socio/economic status.

That type of thing?

might be a useful way to clean up the streets?

kraggy

How about a 3 strikes rule? Not for sentencing but in regard to receiving legal aid.

So if you are convicted 3 times, next time you're on your own in court with no representation unless you pay for it yourself.

It wouldn't act as a deterrant to reoffending, but it would save some money and maybe take an ounce of the sense of entitlement away from these scumbags.

I'd apply it to Social Welfare as well. You commit a crime 3 times, bye bye benefits.

Why on earth should a scumbag criminal get dole money from law-abiding peoples' taxes?

9959

space_man wrote: »

might be a useful way to clean up the streets?

....or empty them.

end of the road

space_man wrote: »

might be a useful way to clean up the streets?

oh dear, you really haven't thought this through have you? having a country where one is found guilty because of their income or where they live because they can't afford legal representation is not a country i and i suspect many others want to live in, thankfully it won't happen as we would have constitutional challenges and probably the EU on our backs (and we don't want to get on the EU'S bad side now do we)

end of the road

kraggy wrote: »

How about a 3 strikes rule? Not for sentencing but in regard to receiving legal aid.

can't see it happening or working out to be honest

kraggy wrote: »

So if you are convicted 3 times, next time you're on your own in court with no representation unless you pay for it yourself.

i can't see that working out to be honest but who knows?

kraggy wrote: »

It wouldn't act as a deterrant to reoffending, but it would save some money and maybe take an ounce of the sense of entitlement away from these scumbags.

i'm glad you mentioned that it wouldn't be a deterrant to re-offending, as some would say that it would when infact as you said (and i agree) that it wouldn't be.

kraggy wrote: »

I'd apply it to Social Welfare as well. You commit a crime 3 times, bye bye benefits.

i think their was a proposal something like this in the UK in the wake of the riots but i'm open to correction on it.

kraggy wrote: »

Why on earth should a scumbag criminal get dole money from law-abiding peoples' taxes?

ideally they shouldn't or wouldn't however not giving them it could increase the crime rates further (i know their commiting crime anyway) but the question has to be asked is not providing these people wellfare worth the risk of possibly increasing crime? its a hard one

space_man

kraggy wrote: »

How about a 3 strikes rule? Not for sentencing but in regard to receiving legal aid.

So if you are convicted 3 times, next time you're on your own in court with no representation unless you pay for it yourself.

It wouldn't act as a deterrant to reoffending, but it would save some money and maybe take an ounce of the sense of entitlement away from these scumbags.

I'd apply it to Social Welfare as well. You commit a crime 3 times, bye bye benefits.

Why on earth should a scumbag criminal get dole money from law-abiding peoples' taxes?

sounds good to me.
having a country where we do not have to subsidise recidivist scum is exactly the sort of country i would like to live in.
and if they continue committing crime, then 3 strikes and they go to prison for a decent stretch. yep sounds good to me!

Annasopra

There is no such thing as free legal aid

space_man

what we need in this country is a few very big prisons to house them in.
land and construction costs are very reasonable now, we have lots of unemployed construction workers who would be delighted with the work/contracts.
sounds like a WIN WIN.

mikom

space_man wrote: »

what we need in this country is a few very big prisons to house them in.
land and construction costs are very reasonable now, we have lots of unemployed construction workers who would be delighted with the work/contracts.
sounds like a WIN WIN.

Yeah, mega-prisons..... works well in the states......

One in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of last year. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population.

space_man

mikom wrote: »

Yeah, mega-prisons..... works well in the states......

the 2 are not in any way comparable.
a bit like comparing our navy with that of the US?
silly tbh.

mikom

space_man wrote: »

the 2 are not in any way comparable.
a bit like comparing our navy with that of the US?
silly tbh.

You go building mega prisons on the cheap due to tight economic times, and you will be going down the road of the "prison business".
A money racket, where prisoners are raw material............ and ya know businesses gotta keep getting their raw materials.

100200 shih

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The sentencing needs to be looked at certainly, you mentioned the Swiss girl case for instance, I know that Barry animal killed a young man from Roscrea in Galway back in 96. He wasn't fit to be released but was because he went to prison on a manslaughter charge.

The problem with legal aid is what happens if you cut it off after a certain number of offences? A Rights issue will emerge.

At the time of the Swiss girls murder , he was out on bail for raping another girl:mad:

end of the road

space_man wrote: »

the 2 are not in any way comparable.
a bit like comparing our navy with that of the US?
silly tbh.

no it isn't, in america you can end up in prison for the smallest of things (things we wouldn't even consider a crime here) of course you can end up in prison for little things here to such as not being able to afford bin charges and tv licence and so on, america can afford to imprison people for any little thing, we can't, so we have to prioratise who we send to prison even if we did build megga prisons, violent crimes should get most priority, when we get that working we can then imprison the person who doesn't pay a fine

space_man

mikom wrote: »

You go building mega prisons on the cheap due to tight economic times, and you will be going down the road of the "prison business".
A money racket, where prisoners are raw material............ and ya know businesses gotta keep getting their raw materials.

i think you are exagerrating things there.
but even if you were not, personally i would prefer a situation where the state/tax payers were making money out of the scum, than the scum costing us.

mikom

space_man wrote: »

personally i would prefer a situation where the state/tax payers were making money out of the scum, than the scum costing us.

Please explain to me how you see the state/tax payers making money out of the "scum".

100200 shih wrote: »

At the time of the Swiss girls murder , he was out on bail for raping another girl

A tax evader or some lad who grew 3 or 4 cannabis plants probably taking up his cell.

Bloody*Mary

mikom wrote: »

Please explain to me how you see the state/tax payers making money out of the "scum".



A tax evader or some lad who grew 3 or 4 cannabis plants probably taking up his cell.

Is there something wrong with that?

If the crime merits prison, then surely that's where those folk should be.