LAST WEEK I stopped taking criminal legal aid cases and withdrew from providing services.
So did hundreds of my colleagues. This is not a decision any of us made lightly.
It is the last thing we want to do. But unfortunately, we felt that we had no choice.
Effective from the beginning of July – the Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan plans to tear up the way criminal defence work is paid for and replace it with a fixed flat fee (a single payment of €455 for District Court criminal cases) – a change that could reshape access to justice in the District Court and beyond.
On paper, it is being presented as reform. However, it is blunt, simplistic and ill-considered.
In practice, it risks making an already stretched system slower, weaker and less fair for the people who depend on it most: victims and defendants.
What is being proposed mirrors what was already introduced in the area of family law, under the Civil Legal Aid scheme. Very many solicitors stopped working in family law as a result.
This exodus resulted in the Legal Aid Board itself warning that “some areas are now
experiencing shortages with no private practitioners available. This affects our ability to
maintain a consistent, accessible, and uniform service nationwide”.
‘Inside the Mounting Pressure On the Legal Aid Board’ screamed a recent headline in The Currency.
Given the backdrop, I listened with amazement last week when I heard the minister for justice say he was not concerned that his proposal for Criminal Legal Aid would lead to a
mass exodus of solicitors from the Scheme.
Perhaps he should talk to his Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who has been more than clear about existing shortages. She said people in parts of Ireland would struggle to access expert advice due to a “lack of solicitors with an expertise in criminal law”.
‘Shambolic’
Importantly, the DPP made these comments even before the minister’s shambolic Criminal Legal Aid initiative was proposed.
This is not the only area where the Minister’s narrative is contradicted by data from his own Department, or an agency under his remit. The Minister has stated that his proposed changes to Criminal Legal Aid do not represent an effort to cut costs.
That is clearly contradicted in a document produced by his own department, which states: “This reform is designed to: Deliver cost savings to the State …”
The minister has also asserted that legal aid costs have risen despite a drop in criminal
prosecutions.
But this, in my view, is a disingenuous and misleading assertion, as again the minister’s own report acknowledges that “the crimes that statistically attract Criminal Legal Aid in higher proportions have all increased in the District Courts from 2017 to 2024”, which “has resulted in a corresponding increase in certificates granted”, and “has automatically resulted in an increase in expenditure.”
Instead of using facts and data to introduce real reform the minister has instead relied on false assumptions, unfounded conclusions and anecdotes. The minister has blamed solicitors for unnecessary adjournments.
In fact, his department does not have the data to show who is responsible for adjournments.
The reality is that adjournments are most often driven by statutory requirements and state-side delays.
Reasons for many adjournments
These include delays in providing disclosure, such as CCTV and statements; delays in getting DPP directions; delays in serving books of evidence; delays in obtaining probation and restorative justice reports, as well as challenges
accessing interpreters.
The minister has questioned why legal aid cases result in more court appearances suggesting that this is because solicitors are trying to extract additional payments. There are often more court appearances for legal aid cases.
But as his own department has stated this is because legal aid looks after the vulnerable and disadvantaged, which “inevitably lead to a higher number of adjournments”.
It is also the case that the type of offences involved in and of itself are often more serious and more complex: burglary, robbery, money laundering.
And if one looks at the way cases appear to be categorised by the department’s review, it suggests that ‘cases without legal aid’ not only refers to private cases but also includes more trivial matters such as speeding, parking on a single yellow line, non-payment of a TV licence, etc, matters which by their very nature will always be brief.
The minister has claimed that he needs to tackle abuse of the system. His department claims to have analysed 350,000 cases.
In its latest document it highlights just two cases where it believes there was abuse of the system. That is a rate of 0.0005% rendering the claim statistically indefensible.
No one involved in criminal legal aid is opposed to genuine reform. We want to see real
reform. It is needed. We all want cases to move more quickly, courts to work more efficiently, and unnecessary delay avoided.
That is not what is being proposed. What we are being handed instead is a cost-cutting measure dressed up as efficiency – one that will create more delay, not less, and one that will hinder access to justice.
Criminal Legal Aid exists to ensure that people who cannot afford legal representation are still able to receive a fair hearing before the courts, a cornerstone of our justice system.
Criminal prosecutions carry serious consequences, and defendants are individuals facing the might and resources of the State.
We are working with vulnerable defendants including children, people with mental health and addiction issues, people with intellectual difficulties, those experiencing homelessness and many others. They are the people who will pay the price.
Major policy change should rest on rigorous analysis and hard data, not anecdote and hearsay.
It should be considered, not rushed. The minister should listen before bulldozing ahead.
Surely, given his office, ‘justice’ should be his guiding concern.
Kate McGee is a solicitor with Peter Connolly Solicitors in Dublin.