Paedophile passes legal aid "merits" tests?

dublin99

I have been following the case of convicted serial rapist and paedophile Michael Boyce from Mullingar. He was jailed for the violent repeated rape of an elderly woman, Mary Hope, over a period of more than 10 years, in 2001. This case was finally solved when a woman Caroline McNamee made a complaint to the gardai about the sex abuse she suffered for years as a child, from the age of four, in the hands of Boyce, whose DNA was matched with DNA found on Mary after the rapes. Boyce was also convicted for indecent assault in relation to Caroline and jailed for three year.

Caroline McNamee, who was badly damaged by the sexual assaults in her childhood years, took a civil case in the High Court against Boyce, which was finally heard, in front of a jury, just over a year ago. She was awarded €493,000 by the High Court. I believe the monetary value of the award may have been less significant but to her, it meant justice and possible closure.

What I find unbelievable is that Boyce was granted legal aid and fought every inch of the claim in the High Court for two weeks, denying all Caroline’s claims for sexual assaults, although he had already been convicted and jailed for the crimes.

Those who have come across the legal aid process will know that, unlike criminal cases, there is a strict “merits” test applied to legal aid applications for civil cases.

According to their website, the merits test take into consideration include:
>the prospect of success in the proceedings;
>the availability of any method, other than court proceedings, for dealing satisfactorily with the problem, for example, mediation; and
>the probable cost to the Board of providing legal services as measured against the likely benefit to you if you are successful in the proceedings.

I am surprised that Boyce got legal aid to fight this civil case which would have cost the taxpayers a small fortune in legal fees. What is even more bizarre is that, he has, again, been granted legal aid, to appeal the High Court decision. Although he did not appeal within the 28 days deadline after the High Court case was completed in November 2014, legal aid paid for lawyers who successfully argued for an extension and allowed him, in March this year, to appeal his case to the Court of Appeal. Poor Caroline, instead of getting closure, will have to go through the ordeal in Court again.

When does the “merits” test stand in this case? Why are taxpayers footing the bill for a convicted child and serial rapist to appeal an award against him? According to courts.ie, he has changed law centres and solicitors several times. Who in the legal aid board, and on what basis, has made the decision to grant him legal aid for the High Court case, and now, for the Appeal? Who does the Legal Aid Board account to? How can they justify granting legal aid to Boyce under their own guideline?

The Appeal is listed in the Court of Appeal tomorrow (16th December). It would be interesting to see the outcome.

Graham

You appear to have asked and answered your own question, all be it that you don't like the outcome.

QUESTION/S

dublin99 wrote: »

When does the “merits” test stand in this case? Why are taxpayers footing the bill for a convicted child and serial rapist to appeal an award against him? According to courts.ie, he has changed law centres and solicitors several times. Who in the legal aid board, and on what basis, has made the decision to grant him legal aid for the High Court case, and now, for the Appeal? Who does the Legal Aid Board account to? How can they justify granting legal aid to Boyce under their own guideline?

ANSWER

dublin99 wrote: »

According to their website, the merits test take into consideration include:
>the prospect of success in the proceedings;
>the availability of any method, other than court proceedings, for dealing satisfactorily with the problem, for example, mediation; and
>the probable cost to the Board of providing legal services as measured against the likely benefit to you if you are successful in the proceedings.

Zillah

Graham wrote: »

You appear to have asked and answered your own question, all be it that you don't like the outcome.

QUESTION/S


ANSWER

The implication is that the answers to these questions for the individual in question did not reflect the reality of the situation.

Graham

Zillah wrote: »

The implication is that the answers to these questions for the individual in question did not reflect the reality of the situation.

That wasn't what I inferred from the opening post at all. If I were to summarise my interpretation of the OP it would be I know the question and the answer but I don't like it because it's a particularly unpleasant case and is undoubtedly causing the victim much hardship therefore legal aid shouldn't be given.

I see no suggestion of the legal aid grant failing any/all of the merits listed.

Zillah

Graham wrote: »

I see no suggestion of the legal aid grant failing any/all of the merits listed.

Well, there was that post in the original post where he implied the person in question should not have passed the merits test. That's a clue as to the OP's intention.

dublin99 wrote: »

I am surprised that Boyce got legal aid to fight this civil case which would have cost the taxpayers a small fortune in legal fees. What is even more bizarre is that, he has, again, been granted legal aid, to appeal the High Court decision

....

When does the “merits” test stand in this case? Why are taxpayers footing the bill for a convicted child and serial rapist to appeal an award against him? According to courts.ie, he has changed law centres and solicitors several times. Who in the legal aid board, and on what basis, has made the decision to grant him legal aid for the High Court case, and now, for the Appeal? Who does the Legal Aid Board account to? How can they justify granting legal aid to Boyce under their own guideline?

Graham

Zillah wrote: »

Well, there was that post in the original post where he implied the person in question should not have passed the merits test. That's a clue as to the OP's intention.

There's no mention of the merits there, just surprise that legal aid was granted.

I'm open to correction, can you see why the case shouldn't have passed the merits tests and be granted legal aid?

dublin99

AFAIK, it is not easy to get legal aid for a civil case unless the case is strong and has a good chance of being successful (the first criteria mentioned above re "merits" test). Considering this civil claim is based on crime(s) that the defendant had been convicted of in the Criminal Court, ie he was found guilty, how likely is it he will be able to deny that all these claims of abuse etc and successfully defend his civil case in the High Court?

Was it really likely that the jury, given his criminal convictions, would have believed his claims that he did not commit any of the rapes/assaults? Details of his crimes are available online from a web search.

And in terms of the costs to the Legal Aid Board v benefits to applicant is successful criteria, the legal costs of his defence (High Court jury case which went on for two weeks) is likely to have already well exceeded the value of his property on which the claimant secured a Judgement Mortgage.

And extra "help" (plus more legal costs!) was given to him, three months after the expiry of the deadline for appeal, to secure a late application for appeal.... There is something very wrong with the system indeed if this is how legal aid is supposed to work!

Graham

What are the grounds for the appeal?

BattleCorp

If he is entitled to legal aid, what are the chances that the woman will receive sweet fcukall of her claim if he is unsuccessful?

dublin99

BattleCorp wrote: »

If he is entitled to legal aid, what are the chances that the woman will receive sweet fcukall of her claim if he is unsuccessful?

Judgment Mortgage registered on his property. Will have to force sale of property etc. He will probably get free legal aid again to fight on....

Point is that the legal aid process is being abused.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dublin99

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He has a property and according to a report in the Independent:
"Michael Boyce (70) has also consented to a judgment mortgage being registered against his property pending any appeal against the award."

Graham

dublin99 wrote: »

Judgment Mortgage registered on his property. Will have to force sale of property etc. He will probably get free legal aid again to fight on....

Point is that the legal aid process is being abused.

I've no idea of the ins and outs of this particular case but I'm assuming there's a point of law being argued in the appeal.

As distasteful as you or I (or most reasonable people) may find this, granting legal aid to someone who has been convicted of a crime doesn't necessarily equate to an abuse of legal aid.

Uno my Uno.

dublin99 wrote: »

AFAIK, it is not easy to get legal aid for a civil case unless the case is strong and has a good chance of being successful (the first criteria mentioned above re "merits" test). Considering this civil claim is based on crime(s) that the defendant had been convicted of in the Criminal Court, ie he was found guilty, how likely is it he will be able to deny that all these claims of abuse etc and successfully defend his civil case in the High Court?

Was it really likely that the jury, given his criminal convictions, would have believed his claims that he did not commit any of the rapes/assaults? Details of his crimes are available online from a web search.

And in terms of the costs to the Legal Aid Board v benefits to applicant is successful criteria, the legal costs of his defence (High Court jury case which went on for two weeks) is likely to have already well exceeded the value of his property on which the claimant secured a Judgement Mortgage.

And extra "help" (plus more legal costs!) was given to him, three months after the expiry of the deadline for appeal, to secure a late application for appeal.... There is something very wrong with the system indeed if this is how legal aid is supposed to work!

Almost certainly the question to be decided in the civil action was not whether he carried out the various assaults and crimes but rather whether he should be legally responsible for the damages claimed by the plaintiff. It is an issue of legal causation and can be very complex.

Given his only asset is his home (which will now likely be sold) and determination at trial is the only way to decide the matter I would suggest that the criteria are met and the award of legal aid is appropriate. Certainly the matter is arguable and not an abuse of the system.

whilst his crimes are reprehensible nothing is achieved in terms of justice by refusing him legal aid.