Paul Murphy Granted Legal Aid!

ohnonotgmail

raymon wrote: »

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

as has already been said he would still qualify for criminal legal aid even with his full income.

NUTLEY BOY

Ahem, has the sub judice rule been abandoned ?

Pro Hoc Vice

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Ahem, has the sub judice rule been abandoned ?

This thread is not talking about the case but only the issue of legal aid. Don't see it as a breach of the rule.

johnnyskeleton

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

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.

A 4 to 6 week trial would cost €60k plus to pay for privately at the same level of representation as the other parties. Even someone earning €87k per annum could not realistically afford that. It would leave them nothing to live on that year. The reuqirement for legal aid is for people who cant afford the necessary level of representation. Very few people can afford a solicitor junior and senior counsel for 4 to 6 weeks.

And if found not guilty, then it woulf be an oppressive amount to pay to clear ones name.

Its a pity that legal aid cant recoupe a portion of the fees e.g. he pays €10k himself.

The constitution requires legal aid to provide representation where it cannot be afforded. We also provide expensive life saving surgeries to people who need them.

Looked at another way, if he earns 87k he pays higher rate tax. Presumably a person who pays large amounts of tax is entitled to the benefit of a state scheme just as much as, if not more than, someone who pays no tax.

nuac

I think many CC judges would try this matter in a much shorter time than six weeks.

imho he should not have been granted legal aid, especially if that decision was based on his net after donating his own or other parties or causes

Phoebas

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as has already been said he would still qualify for criminal legal aid even with his full income.

That's the strange thing about it. He seems to be suggesting that the judgement was made based on his 'young worker’s wage’ of €1800 rather that his actual income before his own voluntary contributions.

Paul Murphy wrote:

“Even if I received a full TD’s salary, I don’t think it would be possible.”

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

That's the strange thing about it. He seems to be suggesting that the judgement was made based on his 'young worker’s wage’ of €1800 rather that his actual income before his own voluntary contributions.

This is the full statement issued by AAA
"Sections of the media are trying to undermine the Anti-Austerity Alliance and the anti-water charges movement by attacking the decision of a judge to grant AAA Paul Murphy TD legal aid to defend the charge of false imprisonment. Some crucial basic facts are, unsurprisingly, being left out of the reporting:
1. These charges are an attempt to criminalise those who took part in the anti-water charges protest against Joan Burton last November and the whole community as part of a campaign by the state to criminalise protest and split the anti-water charges movement.
2. The state has chosen to prosecute ‪#‎JobstownNotGuilty‬ in the Circuit Court instead of the District Court. They have done so because there is a maximum sentence of a year in prison in the District Court, whereas the maximum sentence is life in prison in the Circuit Court. A consequence is that the legal costs of a private defence are massive – potentially well in excess of €100,000.
3. Our TDs do not personally gain from their TD salary. Paul Murphy TD receives the wage of a young worker, around €1,800 a month. The remainder is used to help fund and organise campaigns of ordinary people to fight back against austerity measures like the campaign against water charges.
4. However, even if Paul was to receive the full year’s salary for the next year, he still would not be able to afford the over €100,000 necessary to defend a six week long extremely serious criminal trial.
5. The responsibility for this situation lies with the state, which has already wasted millions of euros in pursuing anti-water charges protesters and is determined to try to vindictively convict people.
The government and the establishment have been proved wrong and forced to back down on water charges, they should drop the charges in this case."

hullaballoo

I hate the rolleyes face but...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

cautiouskate

Someone might know the answer to this. How can Paul Murphy 'donate' most of his T.Ds salary to campaigns run by the AAA if there is a limit of 2,500 Euros per year, on donations from an individual, to a political party. Maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought these were the guidelines under the Standards in Public Office.

Sleeper12

cautiouskate wrote:

Someone might know the answer to this. How can Paul Murphy 'donate' most of his T.Ds salary to campaigns run by the AAA if there is a limit of 2,500 Euros per year, on donations from an individual, to a political party. Maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought these were the guidelines under the Standards in Public Office.

I always thought SF did the same thing. I could be wrong but vaguely remember reading it years back

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I always thought SF did the same thing. I could be wrong but vaguely remember reading it years back

They used, until the new crop found it impossible to live on the average industrial wage, some not being able to afford such necessities as make up. Though their idea of the average industrial wage varied a lot from that of the AAAs!
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-sinn-fein-to-end-policy-of-tds-taking-average-industrial-wage-from-87k-salary-34652894.html

Little CuChulainn

Deleted User wrote: »

They used, until the new crop found it impossible to live on the average industrial wage, some not being able to afford such necessities as make up. Though their idea of the average industrial wage varied a lot from that of the AAAs!
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-sinn-fein-to-end-policy-of-tds-taking-average-industrial-wage-from-87k-salary-34652894.html

They drew a smaller wage but had access to massive expense accounts. When they had fewer than ten TDs this was probably not so costly. With 23 TDs it's likely going to be much cheaper to let them draw their wage and reduce the expense bill.

Phoebas

cautiouskate wrote: »

Someone might know the answer to this. How can Paul Murphy 'donate' most of his T.Ds salary to campaigns run by the AAA if there is a limit of 2,500 Euros per year, on donations from an individual, to a political party. Maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought these were the guidelines under the Standards in Public Office.

And if he's donating over €50k a year wouldn't that attract a big CAT bill?. I think the threshold is about €12k

With SF's large crop of TDs all donating to the party, their gift tax will must be huge.

For Forks Sake

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No Way, We Won't Pay (for anything)

Robbo

Folks, what Paul Murphy does with his salary in excess of the €1,800 or so he keeps for himself is a Politics (or Politics Cafe, if you're feeling saucy) thread.

Whether he's eligible for Legal Aid and matters surrounding the Legal Aid Scheme are topics that belong here.

nuac

Mods, if Murphy claims that the sums he donate to various causes validly reduced his disposable income surely it is reasonable to discuss that here?

This issue affects his eligibility for legal aid

cautiouskate

Robbo, what Paul Murphy does with his salary is very relevant to the legal aid issue. The decision to grant him legal aid was not based on his full salary and so questions should be asked in this respect. Should everybody who disposes of part of their salary in different ways be allowed to go into Court, with documents showing reduced means, be granted free legal aid?

Pro Hoc Vice

cautiouskate wrote: »

Robbo, what Paul Murphy does with his salary is very relevant to the legal aid issue. The decision to grant him legal aid was not based on his full salary and so questions should be asked in this respect. Should everybody who disposes of part of their salary in different ways be allowed to go into Court, with documents showing reduced means, be granted free legal aid?

Did you see his statement of means, was the judge aware as she should be the full salary and the take home pay. It was up to the State Solicitor to make any issue in relation to any claimed large deductions.

People go into court with what on the face of it is large income or assets, but then explain why they are entitled to legal aid. It is then up to the judge to make the decision.

charlie14

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!

Any thoughts now after hearing some of the Garda evidence and the verdict as to who was actually wasting taxpayers money MA ?

lifeandtimes

charlie14 wrote: »

Any thoughts now after hearing some of the Garda evidence and the verdict as to who was actually wasting taxpayers money MA ?

The whole thing was a farce and waste of tax payers money.

Spend taxpayers money to be taxpayers money

It's bonkers

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lifeandtimes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if the DPP will discontinue against the 14 other defendants given the verdict.

Realistically it should seeing as they evidence provided wasn't enough to convince a jury to find them guilty and they were the ones who were said to be most involved and I believe the case of the 17 year old was a closed hearing (I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong)

hullaballoo

It was a Children's Court hearing so yes, it was "closed" in that it was heard in camera and without a jury.

I wonder will that be re-visited in light of the evidence that came out in Paul Murphy's trial.

There are certainly going to be concerns about the fact that State evidence was disproven by CCTV footage.

nuac

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

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.

Afaik his grandfather ran a small building firm in Castlebar. I remember him, a decent highly respected man

nuac

raymon wrote: »

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

When you factor in other perks such as the goldplated pension, access for life to LH etc. etc. his total take from us, the taxpayers, probably exceeds 100 K Euro

lifeandtimes

hullaballoo wrote: »

It was a Children's Court hearing so yes, it was "closed" in that it was heard in camera and without a jury.

I wonder will that be re-visited in light of the evidence that came out in Paul Murphy's trial.

There are certainly going to be concerns about the fact that State evidence was disproven by CCTV footage.

Thank you that was what I meant by a non jury trial. Hopefully it will because you can't put someone in prison for something and then not put other people in for the saw thing.

And you are right,very interesting that the defence dissected every piece of prosocution evidence via cctv and disproved it. What was it 180 statements which are now known to be absolute unreliable and incorrect

charlie14

nuac wrote: »

When you factor in other perks such as the goldplated pension, access for life to LH etc. etc. his total take from us, the taxpayers, probably exceeds 100 K Euro

When you factor in the cost of this trial taken by the DPP based on Garda evidence that was so manufactured even the judge told they jury to ignore, what has the total take from us, the taxpayer been ?

I`m no supporter of Murphy or his politics, but with the charges brought in this trial and the "evidence" produced by the State, it is increasingly difficult to not agree with his point that it was politically motivated.

Really Interested

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

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.

Now that Mr. Murphy has been vindicated, and due to his having been granted legal aid, and the fact that the State is therefore not facing a much bigger costs bill, do you still think it's ridiculous.

40 days of hearing legal aid about 140k costs multiple of that figure you could be look at 500,000.