84% Reduction In Clare Legal Aid Cases Amid New Flat Fee

0:00It is a remarkable reduction over all throughout the whole country. It has gone down from 10,277 to 702. And in some areas, such as District 4, no certs were issued in Mayo one cert with issue. And as you can see in Claire, you're down 157 certificates. That means there's a lot of people out there who need solicitors and need help. And a lot of them unfortunately are vulnerable, are children. And at the moment, they're not being able to access the hope they need. And I suppose just to remind listeners what how all of this has come about, there was a new flat fee model introduced by Justice Minister Jim O'Callahan from July onwards. And on the day, there's a 520 euro flat fee that essentially solicitors like yourself will be paid that would cover your client from start to finish in their case, regardless of how many court appearances there may be.

1:03I understand before this was the standard fee roughly 239 euro for the first court appearance and then 60 euro for each subsequent appearance thereafter. Yes. Yeah. So how much money are you? I mean, because I suppose like to my mind reading this, you'd need at least another five appearances in court to equal the 520 euro. So typically before this, where you appearing maybe even six or seven times in court for a single client. Yes. I mean, what's happened now, what we're concerned very much is the vulnerable clients. The vulnerable clients are the ones where you can be, they can be in custody. They could be juveniles, people with mental health issues. And those clients take upwards of 10 or 20 appearances for a child. There's much more supervisory role that courts will take over a parenting role. And early to make sure that any child before the courts, if they're on the right track,

2:04first of all, get them on the right track. And then if they are that it's not in a flash in the pan and that any change is prolonged and sustained. It's the best way to ensure they can come back with people with mental health issues. We need a number of tendences of court just to make sure that they are getting the services they need. We are the last resort for those people and people in custody. Unfortunately, that is statute that says how many times it must be in court. And those cases can be in court 15 and 20 times. And what we're saying is after the sixth occasion, we will be the people that are in court that aren't getting paid. And where our worry is that these cases with more vulnerable, more people in danger, more people at risk of slipping through the cracks, that those cases will become un-economical and unviable for people to take on. And those people will be left behind by society. They've been left behind already. They don't need to be left behind anymore. So, the listers won't be able to give them the time. They won't be able to take on the cases. And that's not what we want to see happening. Clearly, the government has identified the criminally-glayed system as a place where they want to reduce spending

3:09and where they believe cup backs should be made or where spending should become more efficient. Do you agree that a new system is needed? I agree that the criminally-glayed system has, we have been crying out for change and for efficiencies for years. There have been reports ignored for years for government and how to make efficiencies and sustainable change that will reduce the amount of time in court, that will reduce the costings in the end. And all of these have been ignored. Those inefficiencies in the system will still remain in this new system without addressing those. And all of these is this fee. This system, as in place, does not deal with the inefficiencies in the system. It doesn't deal with the fact that I could be in court four times for a defendant before I ever get to see the disclosure which the state must give me. It doesn't deal with the fact that we don't get probation reports because they are so overworked and unjust-resourced.

4:11The system doesn't deal with this new system does not address inefficiencies. It does not, in any way, address inefficiencies. All of these is a cost-cutting measure without looking at the root of the problem. I'm just finally, Kathy, for those of us that would be too familiar with the legal system, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of people listening and they're going to be thinking that appearing six times for a single client or beyond that is a lot to be in the court four. Could you maybe give us an idea of what typically is involved in a case, maybe one of the goals to trial, how many times you could reasonably appear? Oh, absolutely. Case goes to trial. The first day comes to court. If the person is in custody, we appear, we ask for the disclosure. The state will say, oh, we're not sure whether this is going to be a circuit court or a district court case. I have to put it back to get the DPP's directions. We then could be waiting. If the person is in custody, they must be dealt with within eight days. They must come back court within eight days in their first appearance and then every two weeks thereafter with a maximum gap of four weeks.

5:16Now, those DPP's directions can take four months to come. But we must go into court every time we do not have control over that statute. It eventually gets to court that the DPP says, no, I'm going to leave it in the circuit court. The district court at that stage, the judge must decide whether they want to accept the court case in their court. If it's an assault or the like, the judge then requires a medical report, which isn't before the court. The matter has to be adjourned to get a medical report. The judge looks at the medical court. It's too serious for me. It's going to the circuit court. It has to go back to the DPP to get more directions. And then and only then the DPP comes back in consensus. And at that stage, the DPP says it can go forward on a scientific guilty. And oftentimes, then and only then are we given the disclosure to look at the case to see whether we are prepared to go forward on a scientific guilty. And obviously, we need time to go through that with the client. So you're looking at eight to ten adjournments there, none of which are at the defendant's making. And I think massive efficiencies could be made just in that whole area,

6:19that whole area of the unnecessary adjournments, all of which are at the behest of the state. Not the defense. And that's what we're saying. But adjournments are at the behest in I think 90% of cases at the behest of the state.