Paul Murphy Granted Legal Aid!

Mr. Incognito

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/td-paul-murphy-assigned-legal-aid-for-jobstown-protest-trial-1.2628034

I think this is outrageous.

A TD on 100K a year of taxpayers money takes more of taxpayers money to fund his defence of a criminal accusation.

He should be made pay his legal fees.

Ridiculous.

alias no.9

Is there a case for perjury here? He chooses to make significant political donations, that doesn't make him a person of insufficient means to pay for his own defence.

whippet

Imagine the outrage amongst his minions if he hired his own legal team. He has an image to maintain

Now he is taking the proverbial. It may be his and his partys decision to only draw down the average industrial wage, but the fact remains that he is on damn good salary and expenses and he has a cheek to even consider looking to waste more of the hard pressed taxpayers money!

HeidiHeidi

I could decide to donate most of my income to the Cats & Dogs home..... does that mean that if I fall foul of the law I'm entitled to legal aid?

What if I decided just to stash my income under the mattress and pretend I never got it?

He doesn't not have an income, he has just chosen to give some/most of it away.

That is just bizarre.....

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but surely that has to be the legal profession looking after its own?

ThisRegard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Now he is taking the proverbial. It may be his and his partys decision to only draw down the average industrial wage, but the fact remains that he is on damn good salary and expenses and he has a cheek to even consider looking to waste more of the hard pressed taxpayers money!

Exactly, he's put himself in the position of taking home that amount. He should be told he earns enough money to cover his fees.

For Forks Sake

http://www.thejournal.ie/paul-murphy-legal-aid-2740512-Apr2016/

He has a neck like a jockeys bollix.

As a TD, Murphy is entitled to an annual salary of €87,258 before tax, which he said amounts to €4,000 a month.

But Murphy said he doesn’t receive a full TD wage because of an arrangement he has with his party.

Instead, he takes a ‘young worker’s wage’ of just over €1,800 a month after tax. He said the rest of the money goes to a ‘solidarity fund’ for various campaigns, as part of an agreement with the Anti-Austerity Alliance Party.

"I receive a net annual salary of just over €1,800 a month and with that I pay my mortgage and other bills. On that basis, there’s no way I could afford legal costs of €50,000."

Murphy said there isn’t a written agreement with the party, but his TD salary is paid into an account that is not his personal account. His allowance is then transferred to his current account, he said.

For Forks Sake

For Forks Sake wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/paul-murphy-legal-aid-2740512-Apr2016/

He has a neck like a jockeys bollix.

So, now it's the States fault

"Murphy said he wouldn’t have been eligible for legal aid if the State had not pursued the case in the higher court.
The responsibility for this lies with the state."

kazamo

Proper order he gets free Legal Aid.
If the State has the time and financial resources to waste with this case then the State should pay both sides.
Does anyone really believe he will get anymore than a fine and\or community service.

We had a banking collapse seven years ago but are still investigating that, but we can fast track this show trial to confirm we are serious about crime.

Would we not be better off shelving this lunacy and using our scarce financial resources on something more worthwhile.
There is a medical negligence case in the news today, would the money not be better off trying to reduce the likelihood of that situation being repeated.

Btw, I'm no fan of Murphy, he's a clown with ridiculous theories which don't need any more publicity and certainly no martyrdom.

mahoganygas

The man earned €1.3 million as an MEP.

He's taking the piss!

thegreatgonzo

I know this is off topic but is it true that he is a descendant of William Martin Murphy of the 1913 lockout? Would be rather ironic if it were.

EricPraline

Socialist MEP Paul Murphy replaced Mr Higgins, and has accumulated salary and expenses costs of €1,343,117 for the period.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elections/revealed-the-24m-in-salaries-and-expenses-we-pay-to-our-12-meps-30291108.html

It would be good to take a step back and picture the uproar from certain groups if another individual - let's say a former minister, a bailed-out banker, or a charity CEO - applied for legal aid after earning this kind of money while acting in a public capacity.

Grolschevik

The state's solicitor didn't object, and a judge granted it, so... do we now only agree with judicial decisions when they reflect our personal politics?

HeidiHeidi

Grolschevik wrote: »

The state's solicitor didn't object, and a judge granted it, so... do we now only agree with judicial decisions when they reflect our personal politics?

Nothing to do with personal politics.

It's another one of those "but they were entitled" situations.

Obviously the rules allowed him to be granted legal aid - but if the rules allow someone on a TD's salary (regardless of what he chooses to do with it) and who's earned that kind of money in a public role recently (I'm taking that MEP figure as given) then clearly the rules need to be examined again.

kazamo

EricPraline wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elections/revealed-the-24m-in-salaries-and-expenses-we-pay-to-our-12-meps-30291108.html

It would be good to take a step back and picture the uproar from certain groups if another individual - let's say a former minister, a bailed-out banker, or a charity CEO - applied for legal aid after earning this kind of money while acting in a public capacity.

If a former minister, bailed out banker or charity CEO did what Murphy did, do you think there would be a court case, or perhaps just a caution out of the limelight ?

Imo, this case highlights the selective nature of who we look to prosecute.

stoplooklisten

if legal aid needs to be provided to someone on the average industrial wage, it shows that legal fees are out of reach for the common man

Grolschevik

stoplooklisten wrote: »

if legal aid needs to be provided to someone on the average industrial wage, it shows that legal fees are out of reach for the common man

That is a very good point.

(It's unlikely, but perhaps that was a point Murphy wanted to get across.
My belief is that he wanted to re-emphasise the political point that he, personally, doesn't take his full salary).

HeidiHeidi

Grolschevik wrote: »

That is a very good point.

(It's unlikely, but perhaps that was a point Murphy wanted to get across.
My belief is that he wanted to re-emphasise the political point that he, personally, doesn't take his full salary).

Why should it matter a jot what he does with his full salary?

That's his business, but he earns it in the first place, and if he chooses to give it away then that's his lookout.

Don't come crying to the taxpayer when you get prosecuted, though.

Spanish Eyes

The criteria for Criminal Legal Aid and Civil Legal Aid are different.

Most would qualify for Criminal LA unless on a mega salary with a mahoosive disposable income.

Details on Citizen Advice website.

Good to know that, before I commit my next crime!

screamer

If he chooses to give away his money that's his business johnny tax payer should not be funding his choices.

He has huge future earning potential and under no circumstances should he get free legal aid.

Spanish Eyes

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Why should it matter a jot what he does with his full salary?

That's his business, but he earns it in the first place, and if he chooses to give it away then that's his lookout.

Don't come crying to the taxpayer when you get prosecuted, though.

He (and others in the Dail) may only take the Average Wage and donate the balance.

But to me, that is a total cop out, as the taxpayer is paying the FULL wage anyway, they just CHOOSE to donate the balance to their cause.

Do not forget this fact when TDs and candidates make out how wonderful they are for only taking the AIW.

Do they think we are all dumb or what.

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

He (and others in the Dail) may only take the Average Wage and donate the balance.

But to me, that is a total cop out, as the taxpayer is paying the FULL wage anyway, they just CHOOSE to donate the balance to their cause.

Do not forget this fact when TDs and candidates make out how wonderful they are for only taking the AIW.

Do they think we are all dumb or what.

Yes.

I see SF no longer take the average industrial wage, as they couldn't make ends meet on it! One poor pet couldn't afford makeup! My heart bleeds for them all.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

stoplooklisten wrote: »

if legal aid needs to be provided to someone on the average industrial wage, it shows that legal fees are out of reach for the common man

The granting of legal aid depends on many issues, Mr. Murphy for example would not have got legal aid for say a drink driving case, nor would he have got it for even say a assault matter in the District Court. The main reason from my understanding is the expected length of the trial some 4 to 6 weeks, even a person on say 150K before tax would be hard pressed to defend a trial of that length. The vast majority of cases including Rape and Murder do not take that length of time.

Pro Hoc Vice

screamer wrote: »

If he chooses to give away his money that's his business johnny tax payer should not be funding his choices.

He has huge future earning potential and under no circumstances should he get free legal aid.

Even if he kept his full salary he may have got legal aid, based on the length of the case. In the Circuit Court you have to lawyers Barrister and Solicitor. Unlike the DC the Circuit Court can give costs to the Defendant in certain circumstances, by giving Legal Aid (which is a lot less than what would tax in Costs,) the state can not have a cost order made against it if the matter is legally aided.

cruizer101

Disgrace, unless he can show a payslip which says he is only earning that amount it is all bull****, what he chooses to do with it is up to him.
How the courts even entertained this beggars belief, so what if he chooses to lodge the money into another account from which he then gets a portion it is his choice to do that the same way it would be his choice to spend it on coke and hookers if he wanted, just because you choose to spend money in a particular way does not mean it is not yours.

Edit: On rereading I noticed 'The figures in the documentation were not disclosed in open court.' is there anyway these can be published, fair enough if he put down his full salary and still was granted legal aid, but I just really hate the way they claim they are only taking lower salary

Pro Hoc Vice

cruizer101 wrote: »

Disgrace, unless he can show a payslip which says he is only earning that amount it is all bull****, what he chooses to do with it is up to him.
How the courts even entertained this beggars belief, so what if he chooses to lodge the money into another account from which he then gets a portion it is his choice to do that the same way it would be his choice to spend it on coke and hookers if he wanted, just because you choose to spend money in a particular way does not mean it is not yours.

In court today, a solicitor acting for Murphy said he was making an application for legal aid and handed in a statement of means. He said the State was on notice and had no objection. He said the case could last four to six weeks.
The State solicitor confirmed that there was no garda objection based on the figures in the documentation and said it was a matter for the court to decide.
Judge Melanie Greally said based on the average weekly income in the documentation she would assign legal aid.
The figures in the documentation were not disclosed in open court.


The important bits are in Bold.

Even on 100000 a year euro defending a 4 to 6 week case would be a serious issue.

Pro Hoc Vice

cruizer101 wrote: »

Disgrace, unless he can show a payslip which says he is only earning that amount it is all bull****, what he chooses to do with it is up to him.
How the courts even entertained this beggars belief, so what if he chooses to lodge the money into another account from which he then gets a portion it is his choice to do that the same way it would be his choice to spend it on coke and hookers if he wanted, just because you choose to spend money in a particular way does not mean it is not yours.

Edit: On rereading I noticed 'The figures in the documentation were not disclosed in open court.' is there anyway these can be published, fair enough if he put down his full salary and still was granted legal aid, but I just really hate the way they claim they are only taking lower salary

The state knew the figures and said no objection, do you really think if a person was telling porkies on a sworn statement of means that the State who know exactly his income would just say that's fine.

ohnonotgmail

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The state knew the figures and said no objection, do you really think if a person was telling porkies on a sworn statement of means that the State who know exactly his income would just say that's fine.

Granted that he would probably still receive legal aid even if he declared his full salary but is there not a contribution made by the defendant? Or is that only in civil legal aid cases?

mahoganygas

Pro Hoc Vice wrote:

The state knew the figures and said no objection, do you really think if a person was telling porkies on a sworn statement of means that the State who know exactly his income would just say that's fine.

Paul Murphy was already screaming "political policing" from the rooftops.

The judiciary refusing legal aid would be more ammunition for him on his trade against 'the elite'.

Also there is a difference between his income (earned salary) and his disposable income after donating away a chunk of it to causes he deems worthy.

Pro Hoc Vice

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Granted that he would probably still receive legal aid even if he declared his full salary but is there not a contribution made by the defendant? Or is that only in civil legal aid cases?

No contribution for criminal legal aid.

ohnonotgmail

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No contribution for criminal legal aid.

In that case this is all a hooha over nothing.

Pro Hoc Vice

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

In that case this is all a hooha over nothing.

Once a person is granted legal aid they pay nothing. It is either all or nothing. A 6 week trial for solicitor and barrister would amount to at least 40,000 in fees. Not many people could afford a 6 week trial. To put that time fram in context a murder trial currently before the courts is at closing stages on day 5.

greendom

Deleted User wrote: »

Now he is taking the proverbial. It may be his and his partys decision to only draw down the average industrial wage, but the fact remains that he is on damn good salary and expenses and he has a cheek to even consider looking to waste more of the hard pressed taxpayers money!

maybe he only wants money from the non-hard pressed ?

ohnonotgmail

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Once a person is granted legal aid they pay nothing. It is either all or nothing. A 6 week trial for solicitor and barrister would amount to at least 40,000 in fees. Not many people could afford a 6 week trial. To put that time fram in context a murder trial currently before the courts is at closing stages on day 5.

I agree. no idea how a trial fora public order offence takes six weeks though.

Pro Hoc Vice

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I agree. no idea how a trial fora public order offence takes six weeks though.

If remember correctly there are a number of defendants. But I agree 6 weeks is very long, but if the State on full proofs with every witness in the book called then it could take many weeks, add to that each witness could be cross examined by each defendant.

ohnonotgmail

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

If remember correctly there are a number of defendants. But I agree 6 weeks is very long, but if the State on full proofs with every witness in the book called then it could take many weeks, add to that each witness could be cross examined by each defendant.

would it not make more sense to try them separately?

Pro Hoc Vice

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would it not make more sense to try them separately?

No, that would mean each witness giving evidence at each trial, most witness AGS I assume so each Garda could end up spending days and days giving the same evidence over and over again. Instead of 4 to 6 weeks for all defendants it could be 2 to 4 weeks for each defendant.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

The Muppet

No fan Murphy but persuing this case is a waste of state resources on many levels . It's not like we don't have a serious problem with organised crime in this country that needs to be tackled.

I mean we have pictures of armed people who are clearly identifiable leaving the regency hotel and they are still at large.

I guess it's more important to tge powers that be to send out the message that protesting against a government decision is no longer acceptable.

They really have lost all touch with reality.

raymon

The Muppet wrote: »

No fan Murphy but persuing this case is a waste of state resources on many levels . It's not like we don't have a serious problem with organised crime in this country that needs to be tackled.

I mean we have pictures of armed people who are clearly identifiable leaving the regency hotel and they are still at large.

I guess it's more important to tge powers that be to send out the message that protesting against a government decision is no longer acceptable.

They really have lost all touch with reality.

It is a hugely important case regarding the right of politicians to falsely imprison other politicians that hold opposing views . Paul Murphy may be guilty or innocent lets not prejudice it by commenting on his guilt or innocence.



The court will decide

The Muppet

raymon wrote: »

It is a hugely important case regarding the right of politicians to falsely imprison other politicians that hold opposing views . Paul Murphy may be guilty or innocent lets not prejudice it by commenting on his guilt or innocence.



The court will decide[/QUOTE'


Why is it hugely important ? Similar things have occurred many times in the past and were never persued.

Nice edit btw

Little CuChulainn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The state knew the figures and said no objection, do you really think if a person was telling porkies on a sworn statement of means that the State who know exactly his income would just say that's fine.

Yes.

Carawaystick

Is he charged with False imprisonment, which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment?

mahoganygas

raymon wrote:

It is a hugely important case regarding the right of politicians to falsely imprison other politicians that hold opposing views .

Ironically many of his supporters are the first to label FG as blueshirts.

raymon

The Muppet wrote: »

Why is it hugely important ? Similar things have occurred many times in the past and were never perused .

Being able to go about your business unrestricted is a right we all have .

Just because similar things happened in the past, and were not persued doesnt mean that they were right .

Again - im not saying Murphy is guilty or innocent , but it is important to every individual's freedom to be able to go about their business without being held captive.

This thread is about the legal fees - lets get it back on track

raymon

I think it is disgraceful that Murphy got free legal aid. He is on 87,258 a year salary paid into a bank account of his choosing.

What he does with the part he doesnt spend should have no legal standing.

We (the taxpayer ) are now paying Murphy twice

Im glad SF are removing this dishonest "working wage" charade

Sleeper12

Mr. Incognito wrote:

A TD on 100K a year of taxpayers money takes more of taxpayers money to fund his defence of a criminal accusation.

Mr. Incognito wrote:

I think this is outrageous.

Mr. Incognito wrote:

He should be made pay his legal fees.

Mr. Incognito wrote:

Ridiculous.

I totally agree with you but I don't think tds get 100k. A minister might get that but a td gets about half that I think.
I wouldn't have thought he'd quality for free legal aid though.

raymon

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I totally agree with you but I don't think tds get 100k. A minister might get that but a td gets about half that I think.
I wouldn't have thought he'd quality for free legal aid though.

87,258 euro to be exact , not including expenses, allowances and other payments

Pro Hoc Vice

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I totally agree with you but I don't think tds get 100k. A minister might get that but a td gets about half that I think.
I wouldn't have thought he'd quality for free legal aid though.

€87,258 before Tax, http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/salariesallowances/salaries/

Plus Travel I assume Mr. Murphy that is the Dublin so a minimum of 9,000 i believe no tax on that.

Take home is around 1,000 a week. Even on that amount not many could afford a 6 week trial.