Legal Aid - How does it work?

Re: Legal Aid - How come somebody with a good job qualifies

the attached explains the rules for legal aid eligibility
[broken link removed]
 
Re: Legal Aid - How come somebody with a good job qualifies

The link posted above is for eligibility for free Civil Legal Aid ( such as family law matters).

The criteria for free legal aid in Criminal matters are different. (I don't actually know what they are: - like many practitioners, I automatically ask the District Judge for legal aid if my client is on Social Welfare and not otherwise. This rule of thumb works fine for me.)

EDIT: conscious that the above was a bit of a cop-out, I have pulled the following excerpt from the Criminal Legal Aid section of the DJELR website:-

An applicant for legal aid must establish to the satisfaction of the court that his/her means are insufficient to enable him/her to pay for legal aid him/herself. This is purely a discretionary matter for each court and is not governed by any financial eligibility guidelines. The court must also be satisfied that by reason of the 'gravity of the charge' or 'exceptional circumstances' it is essential in the interests of justice that the applicant should have legal aid. However, where the charge is one of murder or where an appeal is one from the Court of Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court, free legal aid is granted merely on the grounds of insufficient means.

An applicant for free legal aid may be required by the court to complete a statement of means. It is an offence for an applicant to knowingly make a false statement or conceal a material fact for the purpose of obtaining legal aid. Such an offence carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment or both.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no involvement in the day to day running of the scheme, the granting of free legal aid or assignment of lawyers. These matters are handled entirely by the courts.
 
Re: Legal Aid - How come somebody with a good job qualifies

District Court Judges vary in their attitude to granting of legal aid. Some require statement of means and conduct an enquiry before granting the legal aid while the majority simply grant it as a matter of course. After all every Defendant has a right to legal representation, and it seems to me that most Judges err on the side of granting the legal aid to vindicate this right and avoid challenges down the road to a conviction where legal aid was not granted.

We can only speculate on what occurred in court and have no idea as to the level of inquiry carried out by the Judge. It may have been the case that a statement of means was lodged and the application considered in detail by the Judge. Certainly, the Defendant would not fit the profile of the usual defendant for which legal aid is granted on the nod. He probably does not have access to the €600k allegedly defrauded and he may not be currently employed. Unless it is a CAB investigation legal aid would likely be granted in those circumstances imo. He would have less of an entitlement to this aid if he was currently on paid leave from FAS.

Some may feel that our legal aid system should be less generous, especially if Defendant has any substantial fixed assets (such as a house) or that there should be obligation to liquidate such assets and pay back legal aid if the Defendant is convicted.
 
I have split this question from another closed thread which concerned a particular case.

Please keep this thread to discuss how the Legal Aid System works and how eligibility is determined.

I have moved across some of the sensible on topic posts.

aj
mod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top