Judge revokes legal aid

Ken. · 04-07-2013 10:17AM #1

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 · 04-07-2013 10:36AM

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

shruikan2553 · 04-07-2013 10:36AM

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 · 04-07-2013 10:41AM

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 · 04-07-2013 11:02AM

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 · 04-07-2013 12:03PM

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 · 04-07-2013 12:19PM

Give them free legal aids instead

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 04-07-2013 12:29PM

Indefensible, Judge is entirely correct.

Cody Pomeray · 04-07-2013 12:52PM

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 · 04-07-2013 12:56PM

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 · 04-07-2013 12:57PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:01PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:10PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:11PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:16PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:22PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:26PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:38PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:39PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:42PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:51PM

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 · 04-07-2013 01:57PM

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 · 04-07-2013 02:31PM

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 · 04-07-2013 02:38PM

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 · 04-07-2013 02:48PM

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 · 04-07-2013 02:55PM

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 · 04-07-2013 02:58PM

Trigger Happy wrote: »

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

You have to be called Anto

tmc86 · 04-07-2013 03:00PM

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.

04-07-2013 03:00PM

uch wrote: »

You have to be called Anto

coffee and biscuits came out my nose there

ledonb · 04-07-2013 03:09PM

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 · 04-07-2013 03:12PM

This post has been deleted.

Judge revokes legal aid

Comments