The absurdity of Free Legal Aid

Cee-Jay-Cee

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

suicide_circus

Peatys

Graces7 wrote: »

€1000 a day barrister applying for free legal aid.

Graces7

Peatys wrote: »

€1000 a day barrister applying for free legal aid.

I get that but googled barristers/legal aid and read about the Barristers Panel at the Legal Aid board.

Think I will ask on the Legal Discussion forum.

Cannot post link but looked up Legal Aid here in Ireland ( different system than in my home UK) and they list " Barrister Scheme Fees" and that barristers can give legal aid and advice under the Legal Aid scheme.

Vic_08

Graces7 wrote: »

I get that but googled barristers/legal aid and read about the Barristers Panel at the Legal Aid board.

Think I will ask on the Legal Discussion forum.

Prepare yourself for a stream of condescension from some close relations to those pictured in post #2.

Ten of Swords

Mod

Please keep the discussion to the area of legal aid. Do not discuss a case that is still before the courts

gifted

FREE.......A word very much associated with Ireland.......













Except if you work.

Ubbquittious

It is crazy that the legal system is so cumbersome and complicated that an ordinary innocent person can't easily represent himself without a big risk of being done for a crime he didn't commit

Vic_08

Ubbquittious wrote: »

It is crazy that the legal system is so cumbersome and complicated that an ordinary innocent person can't easily represent himself without a big risk of being done for a crime he didn't commit

You say that like it is a strange thing that just happened. It is very much designed to be opaque to outsiders in order to keep the power, privilege and money locked up in the corrupt legal profession.

The awful protectionist practices and ridiculous archaic ceremonial nonsense we unquestioningly transposed from the British imprison us all in a system where their arbitrary rules are considered sacrosanct above logic, justice, fairness and the rights of the majority.

touts

It's not a Criminal Justice System. It is a Criminal Justice Industry. The priority is maximising profits.

s7ryf3925pivug

The judicial system here is very corrupt.

freshpopcorn

Mod Note Moved from After Hours to Current Affairs. Please follow local guidelines.

Dr. Bre

Shatter went after the legal system and look what happened to him

Overheal

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

Evidence that the couple in question paid for the representation and it wasn’t granted to them Pro Bono while they secured free legal aid? Or is this all based on your speculation.

suicide_circus

Vic_08 wrote: »

You say that like it is a strange thing that just happened. It is very much designed to be opaque to outsiders in order to keep the power, privilege and money locked up in the corrupt legal profession.

Same with tax. Specifically designed to be so convoluted and labyrinthine as to remain the exclusive preserve of the special priest-class (accountants)

Captain_Crash

Every person in this country has a right to a fair trial should they be indicted. If you cant afford to be represented, then the state will appoint you with counsel. This is to ensure you receive the fair trial guaranteed by the constitution. Should you not be provided with representation, then any resulting conviction may be deemed unsafe at appeal and it starts all over again, this is the whole basis of free legal aid. Granted its gotten a little silly regarding costs to the state but that's neither mine or your worry.

This does not however, apply to civil matters (apart from a select few, domestic abuse etc)

Graces7

Overheal wrote: »

Evidence that the couple in question paid for the representation and it wasn’t granted to them Pro Bono while they secured free legal aid? Or is this all based on your speculation.

Thank you.

suicide_circus

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Granted its gotten a little silly regarding costs to the state but that's neither mine or your worry.

youre not a taxpayer then?

Kermit.de.frog

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Granted its gotten a little silly regarding costs to the state but that's neither mine or your worry.

Maybe it should be.

Captain_Crash

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Maybe it should be.

Maybe so, but worrying about that wont change it. Shatter tried to and look how that went. I'd suggest that the general public would accept a degree of overspend in order to have free legal aid available so maybe its the cost of doing business so to speak.

Ronin247

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Maybe so, but worrying about that wont change it. Shatter tried to and look how that went. I'd suggest that the general public would accept a degree of overspend in order to have free legal aid available so maybe its the cost of doing business so to speak.

I agree that it is a necessary evil but the simple answer for me is to cap it at 3 times in say a 3 year period. If you keep committing crimes it stops. I hope this would help get rid of the 100+ conviction crowd as, part of the problem is there is an industry built up around these people. Judges, barristers, solicitors, court workers and even the Gardai all make a tidy sum chasing up the same 1000 ir so habitual offenders.

IAmTheReign

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

Why do you think they could afford the barrister? Barristers willing to work for legal aid are normally available at the courthouse on the day. They wouldn't have paid him to appear at all.

splinter65

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

She’s not in receipt of Carers allowance. She says she’s in receipt of DCA which is a monthly payment of €306.
This isn’t a means tested payment.
The fact that they have no other payments tells me that they don’t have any other payments because they have “failed to disclose their means” to SW.

Captain_Crash

Ronin247 wrote: »

I agree that it is a necessary evil but the simple answer for me is to cap it at 3 times in say a 3 year period.

I see your point, but that defies the logic of legal aid in the first place. For better or for worse its got its problems

Boggles

Is this case the same one as the video that was doing the rounds last year?

berettaman

suicide_circus wrote: »

Same with tax. Specifically designed to be so convoluted and labyrinthine as to remain the exclusive preserve of the special priest-class (accountants)

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. .the mother wanted me to be a priest. Studied for years to understand tax and now I am priest class:D

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

Is this case the same one as the video that was doing the rounds last year?

I never see any of these videos doing the rounds. I gather they made a complaint to GSOC about a Garda shooting their dog, they gave sworn statements regarding the matter and now the Gardaí have concrete proof that they lied in the statements.

suicide_circus

berettaman wrote: »

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. .the mother wanted me to be a priest. Studied for years to understand tax and now I am priest class:D

the reason you had to study it for years is that it is deliberately convoluted in order to keep the plebs knocking at your door. this is from an accountant in my family btw.

When the video came out they said there was no dog.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

If a sitting TD is “entitled” to it, then so are these poor people. https://www.thejournal.ie/paul-murphy-legal-fees-2752580-May2016/

Boggles

splinter65 wrote: »

I never see any of these videos doing the rounds. I gather they made a complaint to GSOC about a Garda shooting their dog, they gave sworn statements regarding the matter and now the Gardaí have concrete proof that they lied in the statements.

There was definitely a thread and video of a guard discharging his weapon at a dog.

It would appear the dog is safe and sound.

Which is a good news story.

Ronin247

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I see your point, but that defies the logic of legal aid in the first place. For better or for worse its got its problems

Not really. Legal aid is provided so that the ordinary people who are in legal trouble can get representation if they cannot afford it themselves. A career criminal should only be allowed to avail of it a limited number of times. Maybe a lifetime cap of 10 times?.
The problem with career criminals is that they show no income because of the nature of their "business" so they always qualify for legal aid.
The same thing happens if a regular Joe is caught claiming social welfare and earning money on the side, they lose the SW for 6 months or more. If you are caught "earning" a living through crime you don't lose your social welfare. Whole system suits criminals.

Captain_Crash

Ronin247 wrote: »

A career criminal should only be allowed to avail of it a limited number of times.

A career criminal has the same constitutional rights as you or I tho, whether we like it or not.

berettaman

Captain_Crash wrote: »

A career criminal has the same constitutional rights as you or I tho, whether we like it or not.

Okay, fair point. We are all citizens of the republic and we all have the same rights and obligations.


You do something wrong and you can't afford legal representation, fine .
State pics up the tab.


That is the system.


However there needs to be an overhaul of the way justice is administered in this country.



I am always amazed how people can be so unfortunate to have so many previous convictions and out on bail they are committing more crimes. At some stage it should be said, listen, no more goes on the merry go round for you. Here is a 10 year sentence.


I always think of the couple in Cratloe wood. The scum that attacked them should never have been on the loose.:mad:

martingriff

Ronin247 wrote: »

I agree that it is a necessary evil but the simple answer for me is to cap it at 3 times in say a 3 year period. If you keep committing crimes it stops. I hope this would help get rid of the 100+ conviction crowd as, part of the problem is there is an industry built up around these people. Judges, barristers, solicitors, court workers and even the Gardai all make a tidy sum chasing up the same 1000 ir so habitual offenders.

But let's say the 4 time he is arrested and goes to court he is actually innocent. Should they not have a fair trial.

I agree free legal aid has grown into a bit of a monster and something has to be done to show it is not abused by both sides

KrustyUCC

Where does that stop though?

let's say the 4000th time he is arrested and goes to court he is actually innocent. Should they not have a fair trial?

It's a really difficult one

There should be some cap on free legal aid but where to draw the line is a difficult question

berettaman

martingriff wrote: »

But let's say the 4 time he is arrested and goes to court he is actually innocent. Should they not have a fair trial.

I agree free legal aid has grown into a bit of a monster and something has to be done to show it is not abused by both sides

I spent 2 and a half days on a Jury watching free legal aid in action .. 3 barristers for 3 defendants.

The only ones not getting paid were the self employed people on the jury.
Suspended sentence, go out and rob again.:mad:

martingriff

berettaman wrote: »

I spent 2 and a half days on a Jury watching free legal aid in action .. 3 barristers for 3 defendants.

The only ones not getting paid were the self employed people on the jury.
Suspended sentence, go out and rob again.:mad:

Jury summons and sentencing are different topics and should be really debated however does not answer my point of they person should be allowed every chance of a fair trail on the chance they are innocent.

NIMAN

The case yesterday when the young mum is stuck with costs of 75k after losing a defamation case, it's likely she got legal aid to take the case to court.

So does legal aid pay the 75k for her?

And if not, how is a chancer, most likely with no money, going to pay up?

splinter65

NIMAN wrote: »

The case yesterday when the young mum is stuck with costs of 75k after losing a defamation case, it's likely she got legal aid to take the case to court.

So does legal aid pay the 75k for her?

And if not, how is a chancer, most likely with no money, going to pay up?

She didn’t get legal aid for that. You don’t get legal aid for compensation claims. She had a solicitor on a no win no fee basis.
She won’t be able to pay for the retail company’s legal fees do they’ll end up paying it themselves.

NIMAN

splinter65 wrote: »

She didn’t get legal aid for that. You don’t get legal aid for compensation claims. She had a solicitor on a no win no fee basis.
She won’t be able to pay for the retail company’s legal fees do they’ll end up paying it themselves.

Well that's great news, might make some legal firms think twice.

Vic_08

She doesn't have any liability as the judge didn't award the costs against her, he just threatened to do it "next time".

NIMAN wrote: »

Well that's great news, might make some legal firms think twice.

Not really, these suits are a numbers game. They are the legal equivalent of a mob protection racket. Many businesses/insurers will just settle up and the firms are quids in for the cost of writing a letter, some cases will go to court and get a payout and the odd one will be thrown out like that accompanied by a finger wagging from hissonour.

NIMAN

Vic_08 wrote: »

She doesn't have any liability as the judge didn't award the costs against her, he just threatened to do it "next time".



Not really, these suits are a numbers game. They are the legal equivalent of a mob protection racket. Many businesses/insurers will just settle up and the firms are quids in for the cost of writing a letter, some cases will go to court and get a payout and the odd one will be thrown out like that accompanied by a finger wagging from hissonour.

Not what is printed here
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-told-to-pay-costs-after-losing-case-over-toy-rattle-38712259.html

KrustyUCC

Separate cases

The one in the bag case v M&S didn't get costs against her

The one in a case v Dealz did get the costs awarded against her

Patrick2010

NIMAN wrote: »

Not what is printed here
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-told-to-pay-costs-after-losing-case-over-toy-rattle-38712259.html

That was a different case

Vic_08

NIMAN wrote: »

Not what is printed here
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-told-to-pay-costs-after-losing-case-over-toy-rattle-38712259.html

LMFAO.

I thought you were talking about this €75,000 spurious defamation case against a retailer. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-throws-out-upset-shoppers-75000-defamation-claim-over-payment-for-1-bag-38705010.html

Silly of me to assume our tiny country would only have one such case finishing at the same time.

tayto lover

Legal Aid.

If you’re found “not guilty” == the state pays.
If you’re found guilty. == you pay. Taken at source from pay, dole etc.

CrankyHaus

Vic_08 wrote: »

You say that like it is a strange thing that just happened. It is very much designed to be opaque to outsiders in order to keep the power, privilege and money locked up in the corrupt legal profession.

The awful protectionist practices and ridiculous archaic ceremonial nonsense we unquestioningly transposed from the British imprison us all in a system where their arbitrary rules are considered sacrosanct above logic, justice, fairness and the rights of the majority.

Pretectionism definitely exists, as well as a cringey tendency towards obfuscatory and often inaccurate language that devolves into a kind of legal slang, but realistically any modern legal system will be too complex for a layman to navigate all aspects without fear of pitfalls. You may as well complain that electricians deliberately made it too complicated to wire your own home, or doctors are running a cartel to keep medicine opaque.

In fairness the Courts have bent over backwards for years now to accomodate layman chancers associated with the Freeman movement.

James Brown

As we see all too often, he with the most money wins the legal fee war of attrition.
The ordinary punter needs representation of some sort. Like everything for those with low/no income why do we insist on criticising the less well off?
Don't get me wrong, fake claimants should be hammered with costs.
The no win no fee thing is a scamola IMO. They'll often take the first settlement offers to cover their legal fees, not putting the client first IMO.

CinemaGuy45

suicide_circus wrote: »

Disgusting comparison that is in no way true.:mad:

Pigs provide us with the good old Irish breakfast fry up and what would Christmas dinner be without the Turkey and Ham?

Varik

tayto lover wrote: »

Legal Aid.

If you’re found “not guilty” == the state pays.
If you’re found guilty. == you pay. Taken at source from pay, dole etc.

Only so much they can take form sw, people take legal action and the state is still on the hook just getting paid back €5 a week for likely longer than the person will live.

Just abolish it, if you win claim cost and if you lose then let the solicitors case your unpaid bill.