Legal-aid flat-fee plan ‘open to court challenge’
The Law Society has described proposals for a flat fee for criminal legal-aid payments in the District Court as “seriously flawed”.
Under the plans, announced by Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan in February, one flat fee would be paid for representation from beginning to end of a case.
The flat fee is €455, with €100 payable where a case is referred to the Circuit Court.
A Law Society submission to the Department of Justice sets out reasons why it believes that the measures, due to come into effect in July, will be open to legal challenge.
The Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee has convened an information meeting on the issue on Tuesday 9 June (11am) in Blackhall Place for all solicitors who currently practise in criminal law, or those who may be interested in practising in the area.
The Law Society says that officials from the Department of Justice have been invited to attend to discuss the practical implications of the changes proposed.
Right to fair trial
The submission says that a flat-fee approach will undermine an accused’s right to a fair trial “without any acknowledgment of the complexity, personal circumstances, or length of an individual case”.
It also argues that the proposals further undermine the constitutional right to a fair trial by looking to introduce “potentially perverse incentives” for an early guilty plea.
“For these and other reasons, we believe these proposals will be open to legal challenge,” the submission states.
Family-law ‘exodus’
The organisation expresses surprise that the department was set to impose the plan without any prior consultation with criminal-law solicitors.
“It is particularly surprising that the Department of Justice would look to impose a model widely recognised as having failed in family law, under the Civil Legal Aid Scheme,” the submission states.
It says that there has been “an exodus” of solicitors working under the Civil Legal Aid Scheme, as it has become unviable to provide the service.
Data ‘incomplete’
The submission describes the data analysis on which the department has based its proposals as “fundamentally defective” and “incomplete”, as it does not include information on issues such as the reasons for adjournments.
The Law Society says that the plans are based on what it calls a “flawed conclusion” that defendants or their legal representatives are responsible for delays in the courts.
“The reality is that adjournments are most often driven by statutory requirements and State-side delays such as disclosure, DPP directions, books of evidence, probation and restorative-justice reports, interpreter availability, and judicial oversight of rehabilitation,” the submission argues.
It also describes the proposals as representing “a unilateral cut” to criminal legal aid that breaks a commitment in the current Programme for Government to “fully restore criminal legal aid”.