The Law Society recently met with the Minister to discuss the proposed flat fee structure within the criminal legal aid system at District Court level. The Minister opened the meeting by reaffirming his intention to implement the new flat fee model from 1 July next, signalling a determination to proceed irrespective of the concerns raised.

During the meeting, the Law Society outlined some significant concerns regarding the proposal. Central among these was the assertion that the flat fee model does not constitute a restoration of fees but rather represents an effective reduction – particularly as the Department of Justice’s own report shows that Criminal Legal Aid cases typically involve just over five appearances. In this context, the Law Society warned that the legacy of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (FEMPI) legislation would persist, contrary to the Programme for Government commitment that those measures would be fully unwound.

The Law Society also highlighted the practical implications of the proposed fee structure whereby the flat fee could inadvertently incentivise the expeditious disposal of cases, potentially at the expense of justice. We emphasised that even a perceived risk of this nature is deeply problematic for the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Looking to the longer term, the Law Society reminded the Minister that in time, the introduction of a flat fee system would ultimately be viewed as a turning point for criminal legal aid in Ireland. Rather than improving the system, we warned that this may be regarded as a ‘pivot point’ where the changes are likely to mark a deterioration in both access to justice and the sustainability of legal practice in this area.

Minister’s response – focus on efficiency and ongoing oversight

The Minister reiterated that his primary objective is to enhance efficiency within the criminal justice system, particularly at District Court level. He expressed concern about the prevalence of repeated adjournments, which he believes are undermining the effective administration of justice.

Importantly, the Minister stated that he would not proceed with the changes if he believed they would lead to individuals being improperly encouraged to plead guilty. He indicated that he did not anticipate that practitioners would withdraw from the criminal legal aid system because of the changes.

The Law Society encouraged the Minister to:

• accept the need for changes to be made to the current proposals
• look again at the basis upon which the flat fee has been calculated
• introduce specific carve-outs to ensure appropriate protections for vulnerable groups appearing before the courts.

We also stressed the importance of tailored provisions for cases involving juveniles, individuals with mental health issues, and persons in custody on remand, where additional complexities and responsibilities arise.

The Minister confirmed that he would reflect upon the points raised by the Law Society. He indicated that he is revisiting the proposed €100 fee for cases on indictment, suggesting there may be scope for adjustment. He also committed to ongoing oversight of the new system, stating that it will be kept under review once implemented.

Implications for access to justice

While the Law Society appreciated the opportunity to engage with the Minister, the discussion underscores a clear divergence between the policy objective of efficiency and the profession’s concern for fairness, sustainability and the integrity of the justice process.

We welcome the Minister’s willingness to reflect on specific elements of the proposal, however, the ambition for implementation on 1 July leaves limited scope for meaningful changes. As it stands, the proposed model risks embedding structural pressures that could reshape how District Court criminal practice is conducted, particularly in complex cases or cases involving vulnerable people – people for whom “express justice” will simply not work.

The coming weeks represent a critical window. Without meaningful changes, the proposals may entrench the very difficulties they seek to resolve, with lasting consequences for access to justice and the viability of criminal legal aid practice.