When Legal Aid is too late

...Ghost...

I was in court the other day and was listening to a few of the cases. A couple of cases caught my interest. In one case, a personal injury claim was being heard because of an apparent assault. I don't know the details, because it wasn't discussed. The defendant handed a letter to one of the handlers and said he applied for legal aid two months ago and there was a waiting list of nearly a year. The judge adjourned the case for 3 months even though the delay was supposed to be much longer for the legal aid.

Is everyone not entitled to legal representation? If yes, then would the court have to keep adjourning the case until the defendant was given legal aid, assuming he can't afford to pay? Or would a case be ruled on where the defendant could not secure legal aid in time? If indefinite adjournments are the norm, is it not unfair to the person seeking compensation for such delays in the legal aid system?

It seems like a complete waste of everyone's time if there were on-going adjournments, but it also seems very unfair for anyone to be left without legal representation. What happens if legal aid is too late, at no fault of the person waiting for it?

Mr. Incognito

You are entitled to free criminal defence

A PI claim is a civil matter.

If you cannot afford or get legal aid you are on your own.

...Ghost...

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You are entitled to free criminal defence

A PI claim is a civil matter.

If you cannot afford or get legal aid you are on your own.

That's messed up. I wondered why it was dealt with like that. So, really there is no entitlement to legal representation, unless you have money.

banie01

...Ghost... wrote: »

That's messed up. I wondered why it was dealt with like that. So, really there is no entitlement to legal representation, unless you have money.

In matters of criminal liability there is an entitlement to legal aid because ones liberty may be at stake.

In Civil matters, there is no risk to liberty and the matters at stake are between people rather than people and the State.
If one has become a party to civil suit, one should IMO have no immediate recourse to free legal representation.

An application for Legal Aid can be made and should one meet the means test and requirements you will be supported.
The FLAC and various legal charities may provide support in such instances but the State should have no part in it.

splinter65

...Ghost... wrote: »

That's messed up. I wondered why it was dealt with like that. So, really there is no entitlement to legal representation, unless you have money.

If the taxpayer had to fund a solicitor and/or barrister for every single citizen who thinks that they have a case to take to court then not only would we need courts operating 24/7 365 but the costs would be in the billions.

Cork Trucker

P.I cases are the biggest money spinners in this country followed by family law such as child access/Barring orders etc, not diviorce as a solicitor told me trying to get paid is a nightmare. Criminal cases would be third imo.

...Ghost...

splinter65 wrote: »

If the taxpayer had to fund a solicitor and/or barrister for every single citizen who thinks that they have a case to take to court then not only would we need courts operating 24/7 365 but the costs would be in the billions.

I was talking about the defendant and legal aid. To the best of my knowledge, defendants don't bring cases to court.

On the other side, we have no/win no fee solicitors. That's a massive problem, because the person complaining pays nothing and waits for the money to roll in. No doubt it encourages a considerable number of false claims.

robman60

...Ghost... wrote: »

I was talking about the defendant and legal aid. To the best of my knowledge, defendants don't bring cases to court.

On the other side, we have no/win no fee solicitors. That's a massive problem, because the person complaining pays nothing and waits for the money to roll in. No doubt it encourages a considerable number of false claims.

The no win/no fee solicitor will only agree to take the case if they think there is a reasonable prospect of success. They won't just take any mug's case if they knew they'd lose. They'd be wasting their time.

Mr. Incognito

Also remember that there is no point suing someone in a civil case who has no money.

If the award is monetary and they have no money theres really very little point and most lawyers wont take such a case.

...Ghost...

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Also remember that there is no point suing someone in a civil case who has no money.

If the award is monetary and they have no money theres really very little point and most lawyers wont take such a case.

Huh, I was thinking the same thing. I found it odd that the defendant was seeking legal aid and the plaintiff was pursuing him, which (to me at least) suggests the defendant has no money.