Free Legal Aid...Cut off point?

rubberdiddies

I realise that this wont be a popular topic in this forum, but I don't really know where else to ask it.

I've often wondered why free legal aid is unlimited. I'm presuming its a constitutional right but I'm not sure.

The state continues to grant free legal aid to convicted criminals no matter how many convictions they accumulate.

I have no issue with free legal aid and do think it's necessary....innocent until proven guilty, but I have a problem with the people with dozens of convictions who continue to avail of it.

Is there any basis for examining the option to cut off free legal aid after a certain number of convictions? Or is this a complete no-no.

Does the majority of the rest of the world offer unlimited free legal aid?

Zambia

Everyone is entitled to a defence

hullaballoo

For good reason, previous convictions are not opened to the judge/jury during the trial but are only introduced after conviction, at the sentencing stage. This is to prevent prejudicing the accused's defence and, albeit more in the case of a jury, to prevent the accused person being punished twice for the same offence.

Therefore, previous convictions have no bearing on the defence and as a corollary, no bearing on the accused's right to a defence.

(On the prejudice point, juries tend to take the view that if someone has a spate of previous, it doesn't matter whether they committed the offence of which they are accused, just that they probably should be in gaol anyway/better off the streets etc. Now, maybe that's a legitimate argument but it's not how our criminal justice system works because we at least partially believe in restorative justice.)

Bepolite

What we need is a stronger CAB and for my deja-vu to go away.

Once found guilty of an offence very careful scrutiny should be paid to what someone has and where it came from. Obviously a framework would need to be worked but assets should be removed from repeat offenders.

The knock on issue is then one of people less likely to plead guilty, of course.

Wheelnut

Zambia wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to a defence

Yes, but is he entitled to expect the taxpayer to pay for the defence?

Generally speaking the victim, at least in the case of theft, is a taxpayer. Hullabaloo has explained that part of the reason for free legal aid is " to prevent the accused person being punished twice for the same offence". Is the victim (taxpayer) not being victimised twice for the same offence?

Bepolite

Wheelnut wrote: »

Yes, but is he entitled to expect the taxpayer to pay for the defence?

Generally speaking the victim, at least in the case of theft, is a taxpayer. Hullabaloo has explained that part of the reason for free legal aid is " to prevent the accused person being punished twice for the same offence". Is the victim (taxpayer) not being victimised twice for the same offence?

Yes they are. The alternative is the US system which is completely broken.

It costs a lot more to actually resolve the social issues than do what we're doing. We're doing as much as we can as cheaply as we can.

Pro Hoc Vice

Wheelnut wrote: »

Yes, but is he entitled to expect the taxpayer to pay for the defence?

Generally speaking the victim, at least in the case of theft, is a taxpayer. Hullabaloo has explained that part of the reason for free legal aid is " to prevent the accused person being punished twice for the same offence". Is the victim (taxpayer) not being victimised twice for the same offence?

The cost of the criminal justice system,

AGS. 1,200,000,000
Prison 300,000,000
Prosecution 40,000,000

Rough Figures. 1,540,000,000

Criminal Legal Aid. 60,000,000

To prptect all our rights I personally think it a price well paid.

BTW the cost to the state of running all courts both civil and criminal about 60,000,000 also income from criminal fines imposed by the courts 15,000,000.

Zambia

Wheelnut wrote: »

Yes, but is he entitled to expect the taxpayer to pay for the defence?

Generally speaking the victim, at least in the case of theft, is a taxpayer. Hullabaloo has explained that part of the reason for free legal aid is " to prevent the accused person being punished twice for the same offence". Is the victim (taxpayer) not being victimised twice for the same offence?

A lot of people are so dumb they could easily get themselves imprisoned even if innocent.

Legal aud here has a fairly simple formula.

If your flat broke and facing jail you get it.

hullaballoo

My flat broke but thankfully my facing didn't jail.

voter1983

I think it should be reduced so that every time legal aid is granted it should only be granted for two mention dates and a hearing date and solicitors should be required to work within that timeframe. In cases where legal aid is paid out for a hearing and the person is found guilty then that person should have to reimburse the state the legal aid paid out for the hearing. This should be included as part of the sentencing. All this should prevent people taking the hearing date just for the sake of it. Unfortunately there are too many cases running through endless adjournments before a plea is entered on the hearing date. The only people who benefit from this system is the solicitors, some of whom are happy enough to seek unnecessary additional dates just so they can pull in the extra legal aid.

hullaballoo

voter1983 wrote: »

I think it should be reduced so that every time legal aid is granted it should only be granted for two mention dates and a hearing date and solicitors should be required to work within that timeframe. In cases where legal aid is paid out for a hearing and the person is found guilty then that person should have to reimburse the state the legal aid paid out for the hearing. This should be included as part of the sentencing. All this should prevent people taking the hearing date just for the sake of it. Unfortunately there are too many cases running through endless adjournments before a plea is entered on the hearing date. The only people who benefit from this system is the solicitors, some of whom are happy enough to seek unnecessary additional dates just so they can pull in the extra legal aid.

In order for that to work, the court would have to be made aware of the previous occasions upon which legal aid was granted and this puts the court and thereby, the general public, on notice that the accused has been before the court n times previously, which could objectively prejudice the accused.

voter1983

To clarify. I mean two mentions and a hearing for each legal aid case, ie each new set of offences. So it would be dealt with in the same way as it currently is but limiting the number of adjournments that can be granted on legal aid. Judges are already aware of how many adjournments are given because it's written on the charge sheet in front of them. The issue of paying back the legal aid for the unsuccessful hearing date won't be a difficulty as the person will already have been found guilty at that stage and there is no risk of prejudice

surpy

probably a fairer question, is why is not free legal aid not available to all.
should an honest person lose everything to defend themselves just because they have a few things in the first place?

Bepolite

surpy wrote: »

probably a fairer question, is why is not free legal aid not available to all.
should an honest person lose everything to defend themselves just because they have a few things in the first place?

It's not the system we work on. The common law system is very cheap to the taxpayer and very expensive to those who use it. Personally I think legal aid should be more widely available. Good luck in getting anything changed that would involve more tax though!

You could go further (although it probably derails this thread) in that is the Common Law system the best legal system? Should Judges be much more involved in case management? The Supreme Court seems to think so. Is the adversarial system the best means to obtain justice. I simply don't know the answer to that. I'm a fan of iot in Criminal cases - but civil? Any facets we adopt from the civil-law system costs more, be it more judges, more aid etc.

Pro Hoc Vice

voter1983 wrote: »

I think it should be reduced so that every time legal aid is granted it should only be granted for two mention dates and a hearing date and solicitors should be required to work within that timeframe. In cases where legal aid is paid out for a hearing and the person is found guilty then that person should have to reimburse the state the legal aid paid out for the hearing. This should be included as part of the sentencing. All this should prevent people taking the hearing date just for the sake of it. Unfortunately there are too many cases running through endless adjournments before a plea is entered on the hearing date. The only people who benefit from this system is the solicitors, some of whom are happy enough to seek unnecessary additional dates just so they can pull in the extra legal aid.

Do you know how much legal aid rates are, most importantly how much a extra day in the DC is.

But in the DC the first day is €201.50 and each adjourned date €50.39. Most cases have first day, adjourned for copy statments, adjourned to fix a date and hearing date, so 201.50 plus 50.39 plus 50.39 plus 50.39. Total 352.67 plus VAT less 20% withholding tax.

Pro Hoc Vice

voter1983 wrote: »

To clarify. I mean two mentions and a hearing for each legal aid case, ie each new set of offences. So it would be dealt with in the same way as it currently is but limiting the number of adjournments that can be granted on legal aid. Judges are already aware of how many adjournments are given because it's written on the charge sheet in front of them. The issue of paying back the legal aid for the unsuccessful hearing date won't be a difficulty as the person will already have been found guilty at that stage and there is no risk of prejudice

So you want an extra penalty for a person found guilty, and you want that penalty to be pay the legal aid even though the court has already decided you could not afford to pay in the first place. Also no one would plead guilty as to do so would result in having to pay legal fees. So possible save a few million but cause huge backlogs in courts.

billy few mates

My opinion on this is that free legal aid should only be available a maximum three times to someone on the basis that anyone can make a mistake and find themselves in court, anyone can make two mistakes and find themselves in court twice, anyone who makes three mistakes and finds themselves in court for a third time has used up all their chances.

They could even make it three times in a ten year period or something but I reckon a lot of criminals would think twice about re-offending if they knew their next court appearance would be 'self funded' with all the dangers that would entail.

The current system we have in place seems to only benefit the recidivists and the legal profession with no thought for the victims of crime.

voter1983

Many cases get a large number of adjournments for little reason. Especially when there are a number of cases at different stages progressing together. Im not suggesting that people have to pay back the entirety of the legal aid they receive on being found guilty, just the element relating to the hearing date. Many people are taking a hearing date just to stretch out the case despite knowing that that are guilty of the offence. Realistically how many cases listed for hearing actually go to a full hearing? The majority are plead out on the morning. This is only blocking up the courts with unnecessary dates. If a plea is being accepted then the guard should be canvassed early on and the plea entered on the date actually set for plea.

Pro Hoc Vice

voter1983 wrote: »

Many cases get a large number of adjournments for little reason. Especially when there are a number of cases at different stages progressing together. Im not suggesting that people have to pay back the entirety of the legal aid they receive on being found guilty, just the element relating to the hearing date. Many people are taking a hearing date just to stretch out the case despite knowing that that are guilty of the offence. Realistically how many cases listed for hearing actually go to a full hearing? The majority are plead out on the morning. This is only blocking up the courts with unnecessary dates. If a plea is being accepted then the guard should be canvassed early on and the plea entered on the date actually set for plea.

The cost of an adjournment in DC is 50 euro, in the Circuit court both solicitor and barrister only get paid when the client pleads guilty or not nothing paid for any day before that. The rest of your post is factually incorrect.

Pro Hoc Vice

billy few mates wrote: »

My opinion on this is that free legal aid should only be available a maximum three times to someone on the basis that anyone can make a mistake and find themselves in court, anyone can make two mistakes and find themselves in court twice, anyone who makes three mistakes and finds themselves in court for a third time has used up all their chances.

They could even make it three times in a ten year period or something but I reckon a lot of criminals would think twice about re-offending if they knew their next court appearance would be 'self funded' with all the dangers that would entail.

The current system we have in place seems to only benefit the recidivists and the legal profession with no thought for the victims of crime.

The total cost of legal aid for every case in the country including solicitors and barristers is 50 million inclusive of VAT and inclusive a further 10 million comes straight back to the state in withholding tax. So after VAT and withholding tax the cost to state is about 30 million.

voter1983

My post is accurate. You see it in courts every day and all those €50's aren't long adding up. The majority of criminals have multiple matters before the courts. And when I refer to criminals im not talking about the generally law abiding public who on the rare occasions find themselves before the courts for minor offences

the world wonders

billy few mates wrote: »

My opinion on this is that free legal aid should only be available a maximum three times to someone on the basis that anyone can make a mistake and find themselves in court, anyone can make two mistakes and find themselves in court twice, anyone who makes three mistakes and finds themselves in court for a third time has used up all their chances.

What if someone makes two "mistakes" and then gets wrongly accused of a third "mistake"?

They could even make it three times in a ten year period or something but I reckon a lot of criminals would think twice about re-offending if they knew their next court appearance would be 'self funded' with all the dangers that would entail.

I don't think criminals have that much foresight.

The other thing nobody has mentioned is all the time the courts would waste explaining legal procedure and the rules of evidence to Damo the junkie conducting his own defence. I can see the mistrials already.

Pro Hoc Vice

voter1983 wrote: »

My post is accurate. You see it in courts every day and all those €50's aren't long adding up. The majority of criminals have multiple matters before the courts. And when I refer to criminals im not talking about the generally law abiding public who on the rare occasions find themselves before the courts for minor offences

Yes all legal aid adds up to 50 million inc VAT and tax. My own personal experience of the DC is different to yours and the average case is disposed of in 3 to 4 appearances.

Legal aid is provided for all and should not be based on anything other than need. As a % of the states spend on criminal justice its tiny and allows the system to function efficiently and fairly.

Bepolite

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you want an extra penalty for a person found guilty, and you want that penalty to be pay the legal aid even though the court has already decided you could not afford to pay in the first place. Also no one would plead guilty as to do so would result in having to pay legal fees. So possible save a few million but cause huge backlogs in courts.

+9 on this!

Why 9? Because that's the factor you're going to have to multiply the current case load by to arrive at new figure of cases going through the DC. We'd need to have 9 times the courts, 9 times the judges and 9 times barristers and solicitors. Frankly I think it's a wonderful idea - Can we get this on stream for 2016/17?

billy few mates wrote: »

My opinion on this is that free legal aid should only be available a maximum three times to someone on the basis that anyone can make a mistake and find themselves in court, anyone can make two mistakes and find themselves in court twice, anyone who makes three mistakes and finds themselves in court for a third time has used up all their chances.

They could even make it three times in a ten year period or something but I reckon a lot of criminals would think twice about re-offending if they knew their next court appearance would be 'self funded' with all the dangers that would entail.

The current system we have in place seems to only benefit the recidivists and the legal profession with no thought for the victims of crime.

90% plead guilty, it's not as if Perry Mason is employed on every case and it drags on for months.

Pat Mustard

billy few mates wrote: »

My opinion on this is that free legal aid should only be available a maximum three times to someone on the basis that anyone can make a mistake and find themselves in court, anyone can make two mistakes and find themselves in court twice, anyone who makes three mistakes and finds themselves in court for a third time has used up all their chances.

They could even make it three times in a ten year period or something but I reckon a lot of criminals would think twice about re-offending if they knew their next court appearance would be 'self funded' with all the dangers that would entail.

The current system we have in place seems to only benefit the recidivists and the legal profession with no thought for the victims of crime.

Few people like seeing guys with 50 convictions getting legal aid at the expense of the taxpayer.

However, what you suggest would put certain vulnerable people at the complete mercy of An Garda Siochana.

Although I think that most guards that I have met are decent blokes, that's not the case with everybody, and it's not the case with all guards either.

With such a system, Gardai could prosecute a guy that they didn't like on charges that might not be likely to stick, just to 'use up' the legal aid entitlement that a defendant might have. Then he could be prosecuted with impunity and get absolutely hammered, because he wouldn't be represented.