Judge revokes legal aid

Ken.

Finally a Judge with a bit of sense.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judge-revokes-legal-aid-for-accused-persons-who-went-on-holidays-1.1451804

A judge revoked free legal aid for a number of accused persons yesterday after they went on holidays instead of appearing in court.
About half a dozen accused persons, who had been granted free legal representation, failed to appear before Judge Eugene O’Kelly, at Limerick District Court
Judge O’Kelly referred to the case of William Harty, who it was heard had gone on a foreign holiday two days after he successfully applied for free legal aid.

Menas

Great to see that.
What are the criteria for getting legal aid?

shruikan2553

I cant wait to see how people defend this! (The people going on holidays that is, not the removal of free legal aid)

Im sure "everyone is entitled to a holiday now and again" will be one to come up

LizT

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I cant wait to see how people defend this! (The people going on holidays that is, not the removal of free legal aid)

Im sure "everyone is entitled to a holiday now and again" will be one to come up

There's no defending that. They went on holiday instead of turning up at court. Ridiculous.

fergiesfolly

Its about time. Hopefully other judges will take his lead.
Also, I'd like to see defendants up on drug pushing/supplying charges having to pay their costs and apply for free legal aid afterwards. May be more difficult to plead the poor mouth if you're after getting done for selling drugs.

HondaSami

He will probably claim discrimination or some other ****e and will end up suing the state and we will all pay for it one way or the other but fair play to the judge for highlighting the crap that is going on.

Wacker The Attacker

Give them free legal aids instead

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Indefensible, Judge is entirely correct.

Cody Pomeray

A couple of things to say.

1. It isn't clear whether these were civil or criminal cases
2. Some people find the courtroom experience incredibly intimidating. Haughty, unpredictable junior Judges tend to aggravate the perception of the courts as a daunting place to do business. Parties say 'I'm going on holiday' but really they are normal, law abiding people and are just terrified by being there.
3. A legal bill can sometimes bear no resemblance at all to a holiday. In my earlier student days, I remember passing a perfectly comfortable week in Biarritz on about €150, whereas legal fees could be multiples of that and far beyond the reach of your average Ryanair customer.

If the individual loses his case, or if he had a legitimate basis for taking or responding to an action, then I think he ought to appeal the judge's decision.

LizT wrote: »

There's no defending that. They went on holiday instead of turning up at court. Ridiculous.

Why? There are plenty of cases whereby there is no necessity to turn up at court, so long as you are represented.

Max Power1

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

A couple of things to say.

1. It isn't clear whether these were civil or criminal cases
2. Some people find the courtroom experience incredibly intimidating; apropos of nothing, haughty, unpredictable junior Judges tend to aggravate the perception of the courts as a daunting place to do business. They say 'I'm going on holiday' but really they are normal, law abiding people and are just terrified by being there.
3. A legal bill can sometimes bear no resemblance at all to a holiday. In my earlier student days, I remember passing a perfectly comfortable week in Biarritz on about €150, whereas legal fees could be multiples of that and far beyond the reach of your average Ryanair customer.

Why? There are plenty of cases whereby there is no necessity to turn up at court, so long as you are represented.

I think you are just annoyed that the judge denied your legal aid. Come on, tell the truth!

bumper234

Old and grey wrote: »

Indefensible, Judge is entirely correct.

I agree.

Although someone will say "oh the holiday was booked/payed for way before the case" Or that old doozy "My Mammy paid it for me" :rolleyes:

Pumpkinseeds

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

A couple of things to say.

1. It isn't clear whether these were civil or criminal cases
2. Some people find the courtroom experience incredibly intimidating. Haughty, unpredictable junior Judges tend to aggravate the perception of the courts as a daunting place to do business. Parties say 'I'm going on holiday' but really they are normal, law abiding people and are just terrified by being there.
3. A legal bill can sometimes bear no resemblance at all to a holiday. In my earlier student days, I remember passing a perfectly comfortable week in Biarritz on about €150, whereas legal fees could be multiples of that and far beyond the reach of your average Ryanair customer.

If the individual loses his case, or if he had a legitimate basis for taking or responding to an action, then I think he ought to appeal the judge's decision.

Why? There are plenty of cases whereby there is no necessity to turn up at court, so long as you are represented.

Come on now, that chap and his family are no strangers to the courtroom. Jesus H there's always one who'll try to defend the indefensable.:D

Radiosonde

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Its about time. Hopefully other judges will take his lead.
Also, I'd like to see defendants up on drug pushing/supplying charges having to pay their costs and apply for free legal aid afterwards. May be more difficult to plead the poor mouth if you're after getting done for selling drugs.

Isn't innocent until proven guilty a thing? If you deny someone free legal aid on the basis of the crime they're accused of aren't you presupposing guilt to some extent?

Anyhow, I think all these costs associated with courts are a bit of a scam. How can everyone be equal in the eyes of the law if some can afford top notch representation while others can't afford any?

michael999999

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

A couple of things to say.

1. It isn't clear whether these were civil or 'criminal cases
2. Some people find the courtroom experience incredibly intimidating. Haughty, unpredictable junior Judges tend to aggravate the perception of the courts as a daunting place to do business. Parties say 'I'm going on holiday' but really they are normal, law abiding people and are just terrified by being there.
3. A legal bill can sometimes bear no resemblance at all to a holiday. In my earlier student days, I remember passing a perfectly comfortable week in Biarritz on about €150, whereas legal fees could be multiples of that and far beyond the reach of your average Ryanair customer.

If the individual loses his case, or if he had a legitimate basis for taking or responding to an action, then I think he ought to appeal the judge's decision.

Why? There are plenty of cases whereby there is no necessity to turn up at court, so long as you are represented.

Are you a solicitor?

Maybe if these guys had to pay for there own defence, it might actually put them off commiting crime. The solicitors are bigger leeches than the defendants in most cases.

Land into court for a stream of burglarys, get a suspended sentence and there legal fees paid for. Sure why wouldn't they commit the crimes they do!

Pumpkinseeds

Radiosonde wrote: »

Isn't innocent until proven guilty a thing? If you deny someone free legal aid on the basis of the crime they're accused of aren't you presupposing guilt to some extent?

Anyhow, I think all these costs associated with courts are a bit of a scam. How can everyone be equal in the eyes of the law if some can afford top notch representation while others can't afford any?

He was caught with a knife and screwdrivers, with the intent to commit a crime, he applied for legal aid and then went on a foreign holiday 2 days later. The only thing the article doesn't mention is how many previous convictions he has, my guess would be double digits. He knew he was due to appear in court but just didn't give a s*it about the court, the law or the fact that the tax payer would still have to pay for his solicitor to be in court.

Cody Pomeray

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Come on now, that chap and his family are no strangers to the courtroom. Jesus H there's always one who'll try to defend the indefensable.:D

I am not talking about this particular case - reports say half a dozen such cases came in front of the court, and legal aid was revoked.

If I could just get across one point, it would be this. What may look like a popular and common sense move may actually have been reactionary and improper on behalf of the District Judge. Those who can show they are of insufficient means, and who are denied legal representation pursuant to their constitutional and European rights would appear, at first glance, to have a strong case for making the appeal that the conviction was unsafe.

tritium

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I am not talking about this particular case - reports say half a dozen such cases came in front of the court, and legal aid was revoked.

If I could just get across one point, it would be this. What may look like a popular and common sense move may actually have been reactionary and improper on behalf of the District Judge. Those who can show they are of insufficient means, and who are denied legal representation pursuant to their constitutional and European rights would appear, at first glance, to have a strong case for making the appeal that the conviction was unsafe.

Can someone clarify for me here? My understanding was that you'd never be denied representation, I.e. not have someone to act for you in court, just that the state wouldn't pay their bill. Am I incorrect?

MonaPizza

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I cant wait to see how people defend this! (The people going on holidays that is, not the removal of free legal aid)

Im sure "everyone is entitled to a holiday now and again" will be one to come up

Can't see too many people disagreeing with the judge here. You are summonsed to court then you show up. You don't swan off on holiday instead.
You can get a court date changed if it clashes with something that needs to be done on that specific day like a medical procedure. The courts will also show flexibility for things like an interview or a funeral. Rescheduling a court date...no drama. Rescheduling an interview jeopardises one's chances of getting the job. Can't really reschedule a funeral.

But bogging off on holiday without telling anyone is taking the urine. Gonna be an expensive holiday if he has to now hire a solicitor/lawyer.

tmc86

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

A couple of things to say.

2. Some people find the courtroom experience incredibly intimidating. Haughty, unpredictable junior Judges tend to aggravate the perception of the courts as a daunting place to do business. Parties say 'I'm going on holiday' but really they are normal, law abiding people and are just terrified by being there.

I hope you're joking with your second point! Because that is the lamest excuse for not turning up at court! The courtroom is meant to be intimidating which should be a good thing as those being tried will hopefully will be less likely to end up there again!

Cody Pomeray

tritium wrote: »

Can someone clarify for me here? My understanding was that you'd never be denied representation, I.e. not have someone to act for you in court, just that the state wouldn't pay their bill. Am I incorrect?

Legal aid has been unsatisfactorily tested in the Irish Courts in respect of the European Convention, however both the European Convention and the Irish Constitutional case law do, in fact, indicate the necessity of being able to challenge and raise evidence with publicly provided legal representation, especially in terms of criminal cases, where a party is financially embarrassed. There can be no absolute prohibition, and I would venture that there may be no absolute revocation on such flimsy grounds as one party to a case being on holiday, the circumstances of which are not known to the court.

tmc86 wrote: »

I hope you're joking with your second point! Because that is the lamest excuse for not turning up at court! The courtroom is meant to be intimidating

Spend enough time in a court room and you'll soon make a few observations - judges are human, and are prone to genuine mistakes - and there is nothing intimidating about being there. The courts are a public institution that are open to and exist for the benefit of the public. They should never be intimidatory.

ledonb

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

A couple of things to say.

1. It isn't clear whether these were civil or criminal cases
.

They were styled as accused. I never heard the defendant in a civil case being so styled. In civil cases the legal aid is granted by the legal aid board and not the judge. In criminal cases the legal aid is granted by the judge. A vouched statement of means is supposed to be supplied before legal aid is given. If going on holiday is inconsistent with the statement of means supplied the judge is entitled to do something about it.
Judges get annoyed when people do not show up. The usual thing is to make people sit up and pay attention.

Cody Pomeray

ledonb wrote: »

A vouched statement of means is supposed to be supplied before legal aid is given. If going on holiday is inconsistent with the statement of means supplied the judge is entitled to do something about it.

Yes that's right but a vouched statement of means is not necessarily inconsistent with going on holiday, for example if that holiday was the result of saving money over an extended period of time, a credit union loan, a family gift, or a prize. In my opinion, while the DJ's comments are good enough to provoke a public hurrah, legal aid is something that may have to be reconsidered for at least some of the individuals.

I haven't read up on the articles surrounding this case, but it's not particularly relevant to us whether they pertain to criminal or civil hearings.

ledonb

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes that's right but a vouched statement of means is not necessarily inconsistent with going on holiday, for example if that holiday was the result of saving money over an extended period of time, a credit union loan, a family gift, or a prize. In my opinion, while the DJ's comments are good enough to provoke a public hurrah, legal aid is something that may have to be reconsidered for at least some of the individuals.

I haven't read up on the articles surrounding this case, but it's not particularly relevant to us whether they pertain to criminal or civil hearings.

If there is money in the bank, no matter how long it has been saved up it would be relevant to legal aid. A gift is also means. Not turning up is also relevant.

Dravokivich

I don't get why his legal aid is seen as being revoked justifiably. He should be charged with not showing up, or at least some sort of reference to contempt for the proceedings. Now he's a basis for an unfair presentation of his case right?

ledonb

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't get why his legal aid is seen as being revoked justifiably. He should be charged with not showing up, or at least some sort of reference to contempt for the proceedings. Now he's a basis for an unfair presentation of his case right?

He went in saying he couldn't afford to represent himself. He then goes on holidays which raises a strong inference that he could afford to represent himself. Why should the state pay for his legal representation until he clarifies the situation?

Dravokivich

ledonb wrote: »

He went in saying he couldn't afford to represent himself. He then goes on holidays which raises a strong inference that he could afford to represent himself. Why should the state pay for his legal representation until he clarifies the situation?

“He applied for legal aid here before, on the basis that his income was €188 per week. This man has gone on holiday when the taxpayer and the State are footing his legal costs. Two days previously he made an application for the State to pick up his legal bill.”

We know nothing of the circumstances of his going abroad other than he did it. Do we really need to prod deep enough to get the costings for it and where in fact he went when he went abroad and how long for along with who/when it was paid for? Cancelling a holiday doesn't refund the money to be spent on going away either.

His aid was granted on the basis of his available income, and so it should remain on the basis of his available income. If he's squandering and wasting time in court proceedings, he should be charged accordingly. Not have his legal aid revoked, at the expense of a just trial.

uch

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Great to see that.
What are the criteria for getting legal aid?

You have to be called Anto

tmc86

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Spend enough time in a court room and you'll soon make a few observations - judges are human, and are prone to genuine mistakes - and there is nothing intimidating about being there. The courts are a public institution that are open to and exist for the benefit of the public. They should never be intimidatory.

I'm not sure why you mentioned that Judges are human, I didn't say anything in that regard.

I'd still disagree. It should be an intimidating place (provided they have done something wrong) because that's where you get your sentence. If it's intimidating it might deter someone from ending up there again. Still not an excuse for skipping court but then some people are just cowards aren't big enough to man up for their actions.

uch

uch wrote: »

You have to be called Anto

coffee and biscuits came out my nose there

ledonb

Dravokivich wrote: »

We know nothing of the circumstances of his going abroad other than he did it. Do we really need to prod deep enough to get the costings for it and where in fact he went when he went abroad and how long for along with who/when it was paid for? Cancelling a holiday doesn't refund the money to be spent on going away either.

.

We do need to prod. Why didn't he mention he would be going on holiday when he made the legal aid application? He was told what the return date was going to be and if he had a difficulty, that was the time to mention it. Most people do not have a holiday fall off the back of a truck into their lap, they have to pay for it. Until it is explained the presumption must be that he concealed assets when applying for legal aid.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Pumpkinseeds

Dravokivich wrote: »

We know nothing of the circumstances of his going abroad other than he did it. Do we really need to prod deep enough to get the costings for it and where in fact he went when he went abroad and how long for along with who/when it was paid for? Cancelling a holiday doesn't refund the money to be spent on going away either.

His aid was granted on the basis of his available income, and so it should remain on the basis of his available income. If he's squandering and wasting time in court proceedings, he should be charged accordingly. Not have his legal aid revoked, at the expense of a just trial.

Yes, I think the judge should probe into his income. He stated that his only source of income was 188 euro per week. If all criminals were honest about their funds we wouldn't need the CAB. Criminals not turning up in court are taking the proverbial. They know what date they are due in court and it wastes the courts time if they aren't present, haven't notified the court that they won't be present and results in a Judge having to issue a bench warrant for their arrest.

Not to mention the additional costs involved in arranging another date for their cases to be heard. I'm assuming that their legal aid solicitor will still have to be paid for being in court, even though their client failed to attend. That's before you even open the whole can of worms about how an unemployed criminal, father of 3 can afford a foreign holiday.

Pumpkinseeds

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Maybe he'll do it for free!!

I doubt it, have you seen the break down of fees paid to some of the legal aid solicitors in this country:D

Cody Pomeray

ledonb wrote: »

If there is money in the bank, no matter how long it has been saved up

This man's application for legal aid had only heard two days before his trip, by which time the holiday was obviously have been paid for.

Look lets save some time here. If the DJ in this case maintains his refusal to grant legal aid when the accused comes back before the court, or if another judge of the district court rules the application to be res judicata, then I don't believe the accused will have difficulty in, at the very least, seeking an order of certiorari quashing the District Judge's decision.

In short, if he adheres to this decision, the Judge is likely to be wasting the court's time and the taxpayer's money.

tmc86 wrote: »

It should be an intimidating place (provided they have done something wrong) because that's where you get your sentence.

Oh for God's sake. A court's function is to determine justice, not solely to hand down sentences. Matters of law are not pre-determined. A party to an action or a prosecution ought to feel confident that the Court is willing and able to hear the case fairly, and as such an accused must never feel intimidated.

Potential-Monke

Cody, i get where you're coming from, and i know all too well about the Judicial System and Legal Aid. However, there is no denying that the Judge made the right call here. How anyone can apply and get legal aid and then take a holiday 2 days later and expect to get away with it is beyond me. And i'd be 100% positive that that Judge has dealt with that male (in the OP) enough times to know what he's like.

If there is a challenge afterwards, fine, let there be one. The DJ's actions highlighted the farce that is the legal aid system, and even if it costs more in the long run, it has brought to light said farce.

And aside from genuine people caught on the wrong side of the law, i've never seen a Judge look for a statement of means from a "regular" criminal.

Boombastic

If anything this shows their contempt of the court, they should be arrested at the airport and their asses hauled to jail. They couldn't be bothered attending because a holiday is more important. Aside from the fact that legal aid was granted, his lifestyle of crime is being funding by the social welfare.

Cody Pomeray

Potential-Monke wrote: »

If there is a challenge afterwards, fine, let there be one. The DJ's actions highlighted the farce that is the legal aid system, and even if it costs more in the long run, it has brought to light said farce.

But it's not just a farce, it's law. Judicial activism of this nature would be inappropriate. Political protests are not to be dispatched from the bench of the district court.

I don't believe the judge was trying to make a point about legal aid. I think he was just offended that the accused individuals had gone to Santa Ponsa instead of showing respect to his court. I think he made some comments that he hadn't fully thought out, and I hope for the sake of the accused and for the judge's ego, and for the sake of the taxpayer that the district judge reconsiders his decision before any challenge is made.

Lets face it. Even in civil actions (where although determined differently to criminal prosecutions, you might argue the concerns about constitutional protections are in fact diminished) a party can be on a gross salary of €30k and still come comfortably within the income limits for legal aid.

Where does this leave us? In four places

1. That the legal aid scheme must apply to individuals who, although they are on low income at the commencement of a prosecution, are not quite living hand to mouth. They are not well off, but they need not be destitute either.
2. That revoking legal aid because the accused appears to have undertaken an expenditure which, having been committed prior to his application for legal aid, may not have affected his eligibility, is irrational.
3. More seriously, this suggests a disregard for fair procedures by the District Judge, which is adequate to meet the test for relief for the accused by way of certiorari in a judicial review hearing.
4. More seriously again, this is a flippant and a rash manner of dealing with an accused person's constitutional rights.

Pumpkinseeds

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But it's not just a farce, it's law. Judicial activism of this nature would be inappropriate. Political protests are not to be dispatched from the bench of the district court.

I don't believe the judge was trying to make a point about legal aid. I think he was just offended that the accused individuals had gone to Santa Ponsa instead of showing respect to his court. I think he made some comments that he hadn't fully thought out, and I hope for the sake of the accused and for the judge's ego, and for the sake of the taxpayer that the district judge reconsiders his decision before any challenge is made.

Lets face it. Even in civil actions (where although determined differently to criminal prosecutions, you might argue the concerns about constitutional protections are in fact diminished) a party can be on a gross salary of €30k and still come comfortably within the income limits for legal aid.

Where does this leave us? In four places

1. That the legal aid scheme must apply to individuals who, although they are on low income at the commencement of a prosecution, are not quite living hand to mouth. They are not well off, but they need not be destitute either.
2. That revoking legal aid because the accused appears to have undertaken an expenditure which, having been committed prior to his application for legal aid, may not have affected his eligibility, is irrational.
3. More seriously, this suggests a disregard for fair procedures by the District Judge, which is adequate to meet the test for relief for the accused by way of certiorari in a judicial review hearing.
4. More seriously again, this is a flippant and a rash manner of dealing with an accused person's constitutional rights.

Surely the accused is the one showing a disregard for fair proceedure by not attending court and not notifying his legal aid solicitor that he wouldn't be attending court. The fact that the system is set up in the criminals favour, therefore putting the Judge in an awkward position, shows that changes need to be made to the system. I really don't see why weekly deductions can't be made from a person's social welfare payments to cover their legal aid costs.

Cody Pomeray

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Surely the accused is the one showing a disregard for fair proceedure by not attending court..

It isn't always necessary for a person to attend. We don't know what the details of the half a dozen cases were.

In cases where an accused does not attend, the practice should be to issue a bench warrant. Not to cut off a man's ability to defend his liberty next time he comes before the court.

I really don't see why weekly deductions can't be made from a person's social welfare payments to cover their legal aid costs.

The natural implication there would be that social welfare payments endow an individual with the capacity to meet his basic needs and then pay legal fees. Most people availing of social welfare will never come before a judge in a criminal case, therefore, the theory goes, we should cut welfare rates.

wandatowell

As bad as things are, Judges must be as frustrated as the ordinary person is with the legal system in this country

Pumpkinseeds

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It isn't always necessary for a person to attend. We don't know what the details of the half a dozen cases were.

In cases where an accused does not attend, the practice should be to issue a bench warrant. Not to cut off a man's ability to defend his liberty next time he comes before the court.

The natural implication there would be that social welfare payments endow an individual with the capacity to meet his basic needs and then pay legal fees. Most people availing of social welfare will never come before a judge in a criminal case, therefore, the theory goes, we should cut welfare rates.

As you said, we don't know the details of the other cases, however we don't know if the individual has a history of failing to attend court, or not. I think the vast majority would agree that there needs to be a review of legal aid. I've heard far to many cases of career criminals playing the system. I only have to look at the criminal court listings in my own county to see the same members of the same families, often several on the same day, time after time.

Nonoperational

Great stuff.

To be honest, if I was due in court in 2 days I'd cancel the ****ing holiday... Being in court would be such a big event in my life I'd not be able to enjoy a holiday at all. These scumbags that think they can do what they want and get the state to finance a big part of it need to be sorted out.

wicklowstevo

<snip>

hatrickpatrick

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I cant wait to see how people defend this! (The people going on holidays that is, not the removal of free legal aid)

Im sure "everyone is entitled to a holiday now and again" will be one to come up

Not so much that, but if you're accused of something IMO you shouldn't pay any legal costs whatsoever until and unless found guilty. If you're not found guilty, whoever brought the case should pay the lot, whether that be the state or a private citizen.

seligehgit

Fair play to the judge,common sense at last!

Guy:Incognito

There shouldnt be free legal aid. There should be a legal aid contribution. Ie the defendant is provided the lawyer same as now but has to contribute as much funds as possible leaving them with whatever funds they need to live ( bills/ food etc)

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

A couple of things to say.

1. It isn't clear whether these were civil or criminal cases
2. Some people find the courtroom experience incredibly intimidating. Haughty, unpredictable junior Judges tend to aggravate the perception of the courts as a daunting place to do business. Parties say 'I'm going on holiday' but really they are normal, law abiding people and are just terrified by being there.
3. A legal bill can sometimes bear no resemblance at all to a holiday. In my earlier student days, I remember passing a perfectly comfortable week in Biarritz on about €150, whereas legal fees could be multiples of that and far beyond the reach of your average Ryanair customer.

If the individual loses his case, or if he had a legitimate basis for taking or responding to an action, then I think he ought to appeal the judge's decision.

Why? There are plenty of cases whereby there is no necessity to turn up at court, so long as you are represented.

I think you missed the word accused in the headline, and as legal aid would not be given for a minor civil matter or normally for a minor criminal matter we can correctly assume these are relatively serious criminal matters. So also as the matters did not go ahead with out the accused we can assume their attendance was mandatory.

Legal aid fees for the district court are in the low hundreds for a case, many solicitors will run district court criminal matters for a couple of hundred euros, so if the state is paying then the person is saying they can not pay even a few hundred euro to defend them selves, so how can they afford even a cheap holiday.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I am not talking about this particular case - reports say half a dozen such cases came in front of the court, and legal aid was revoked.

If I could just get across one point, it would be this. What may look like a popular and common sense move may actually have been reactionary and improper on behalf of the District Judge. Those who can show they are of insufficient means, and who are denied legal representation pursuant to their constitutional and European rights would appear, at first glance, to have a strong case for making the appeal that the conviction was unsafe.

One thing a person has to show is lack of means, if a person comes before the court they fill in a form setting out income and expenditure, if a person brought this expenditure of a holiday before the court and was granted legal aid no problem, the issue here is that after being informed of the low means then the court is informed about the holiday, so the decision is entirely correct, even if a parent was paying for the holiday why did they instead pay for the legal fees.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Legal aid has been unsatisfactorily tested in the Irish Courts in respect of the European Convention, however both the European Convention and the Irish Constitutional case law do, in fact, indicate the necessity of being able to challenge and raise evidence with publicly provided legal representation, especially in terms of criminal cases, where a party is financially embarrassed. There can be no absolute prohibition, and I would venture that there may be no absolute revocation on such flimsy grounds as one party to a case being on holiday, the circumstances of which are not known to the court.


Spend enough time in a court room and you'll soon make a few observations - judges are human, and are prone to genuine mistakes - and there is nothing intimidating about being there. The courts are a public institution that are open to and exist for the benefit of the public. They should never be intimidatory.

Both the Irish and the european courts have upheld that legal aid is not an automatic right there is a two pronged test 1 the interests of justice 2 inability to pay.

This case is about not fully disclosing means to the court. It will be open to any of the accused on the next date to address the court on legal Aid and their expenditure, the Court can ask AGS to look into the means of the accused. The accused can be cross examined as to his means and the judge when all the facts are before can uphold his decision or reinstate legal aid. The judge based on the information before him made the correct decision.

Cody Pomeray

infosys wrote: »

I think you missed the word accused in the headline, and as legal aid would not be given for a minor civil matter or normally for a minor criminal matter we can correctly assume these are relatively serious criminal matters.

Yes, that's right. I had read an article on another site which had referred to 'defendants'. I would repeat my opinion that since these are criminal matters, this appears to me to add to the seriousness of revoking criminal legal aid, since I would suggest there are stronger constitutional concerns.

infosys wrote: »

One thing a person has to show is lack of means, if a person comes before the court they fill in a form setting out income and expenditure, if a person brought this expenditure of a holiday before the court and was granted legal aid no problem, the issue here is that after being informed of the low means then the court is informed about the holiday, so the decision is entirely correct, even if a parent was paying for the holiday why did they instead pay for the legal fees.

I'm not being flippant but this has been replied to already, in this relatively short thread.

The application for legal aid was heard two days before one accused individual went on holiday. Now however that individual came to have been able to travel, the simple fact is that it had already been paid for, whether by himself when he had been in employment, or by another person in the form of a gift. The relevance of your point is diminished by way of the fact that the accused could hardly have planned and paid for the trip after his application for legal aid.

infosys wrote: »

This case is about not fully disclosing means to the court. It will be open to any of the accused on the next date to address the court on legal Aid and their expenditure

And as I have said, I hope this happens.

My sole point here is that the court must agree to re-examine an application when a fresh application for legal aid is made. If this judge refuses to re-examine an application for legal aid, or if another judge decides that the application is res judicata and that he cannot overturn the decision of another judge (which, to me, seems like a prudent position to take) then this appears to open the door to an application for leave to seek a review.

As I have been saying in my last few posts, I think it is best if the judge reflects on his decision, and agrees to re-examine the applicants' applications for legal aid. Sticking to any revocation in such circumstances would be entirely inappropriate.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Maybe this medical card thing can be monitored also. It's not fair that Dole Jockeys have such access. I've no health insurance, I if get ill I Die.