The absurdity of Free Legal Aid

Cee-Jay-Cee

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

suicide_circus

Peatys

Graces7 wrote: »

€1000 a day barrister applying for free legal aid.

Graces7

Peatys wrote: »

€1000 a day barrister applying for free legal aid.

I get that but googled barristers/legal aid and read about the Barristers Panel at the Legal Aid board.

Think I will ask on the Legal Discussion forum.

Cannot post link but looked up Legal Aid here in Ireland ( different system than in my home UK) and they list " Barrister Scheme Fees" and that barristers can give legal aid and advice under the Legal Aid scheme.

Vic_08

Graces7 wrote: »

I get that but googled barristers/legal aid and read about the Barristers Panel at the Legal Aid board.

Think I will ask on the Legal Discussion forum.

Prepare yourself for a stream of condescension from some close relations to those pictured in post #2.

Ten of Swords

Mod

Please keep the discussion to the area of legal aid. Do not discuss a case that is still before the courts

gifted

FREE.......A word very much associated with Ireland.......













Except if you work.

Ubbquittious

It is crazy that the legal system is so cumbersome and complicated that an ordinary innocent person can't easily represent himself without a big risk of being done for a crime he didn't commit

Vic_08

Ubbquittious wrote: »

It is crazy that the legal system is so cumbersome and complicated that an ordinary innocent person can't easily represent himself without a big risk of being done for a crime he didn't commit

You say that like it is a strange thing that just happened. It is very much designed to be opaque to outsiders in order to keep the power, privilege and money locked up in the corrupt legal profession.

The awful protectionist practices and ridiculous archaic ceremonial nonsense we unquestioningly transposed from the British imprison us all in a system where their arbitrary rules are considered sacrosanct above logic, justice, fairness and the rights of the majority.

touts

It's not a Criminal Justice System. It is a Criminal Justice Industry. The priority is maximising profits.

s7ryf3925pivug

The judicial system here is very corrupt.

freshpopcorn

Mod Note Moved from After Hours to Current Affairs. Please follow local guidelines.

Dr. Bre

Shatter went after the legal system and look what happened to him

Overheal

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

Evidence that the couple in question paid for the representation and it wasn’t granted to them Pro Bono while they secured free legal aid? Or is this all based on your speculation.

suicide_circus

Vic_08 wrote: »

You say that like it is a strange thing that just happened. It is very much designed to be opaque to outsiders in order to keep the power, privilege and money locked up in the corrupt legal profession.

Same with tax. Specifically designed to be so convoluted and labyrinthine as to remain the exclusive preserve of the special priest-class (accountants)

Captain_Crash

Every person in this country has a right to a fair trial should they be indicted. If you cant afford to be represented, then the state will appoint you with counsel. This is to ensure you receive the fair trial guaranteed by the constitution. Should you not be provided with representation, then any resulting conviction may be deemed unsafe at appeal and it starts all over again, this is the whole basis of free legal aid. Granted its gotten a little silly regarding costs to the state but that's neither mine or your worry.

This does not however, apply to civil matters (apart from a select few, domestic abuse etc)

Graces7

Overheal wrote: »

Evidence that the couple in question paid for the representation and it wasn’t granted to them Pro Bono while they secured free legal aid? Or is this all based on your speculation.

Thank you.

suicide_circus

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Granted its gotten a little silly regarding costs to the state but that's neither mine or your worry.

youre not a taxpayer then?

Kermit.de.frog

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Granted its gotten a little silly regarding costs to the state but that's neither mine or your worry.

Maybe it should be.

Captain_Crash

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Maybe it should be.

Maybe so, but worrying about that wont change it. Shatter tried to and look how that went. I'd suggest that the general public would accept a degree of overspend in order to have free legal aid available so maybe its the cost of doing business so to speak.

Ronin247

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Maybe so, but worrying about that wont change it. Shatter tried to and look how that went. I'd suggest that the general public would accept a degree of overspend in order to have free legal aid available so maybe its the cost of doing business so to speak.

I agree that it is a necessary evil but the simple answer for me is to cap it at 3 times in say a 3 year period. If you keep committing crimes it stops. I hope this would help get rid of the 100+ conviction crowd as, part of the problem is there is an industry built up around these people. Judges, barristers, solicitors, court workers and even the Gardai all make a tidy sum chasing up the same 1000 ir so habitual offenders.

IAmTheReign

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

Why do you think they could afford the barrister? Barristers willing to work for legal aid are normally available at the courthouse on the day. They wouldn't have paid him to appear at all.

splinter65

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

She’s not in receipt of Carers allowance. She says she’s in receipt of DCA which is a monthly payment of €306.
This isn’t a means tested payment.
The fact that they have no other payments tells me that they don’t have any other payments because they have “failed to disclose their means” to SW.

Captain_Crash

Ronin247 wrote: »

I agree that it is a necessary evil but the simple answer for me is to cap it at 3 times in say a 3 year period.

I see your point, but that defies the logic of legal aid in the first place. For better or for worse its got its problems

Boggles

Is this case the same one as the video that was doing the rounds last year?

berettaman

suicide_circus wrote: »

Same with tax. Specifically designed to be so convoluted and labyrinthine as to remain the exclusive preserve of the special priest-class (accountants)

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. .the mother wanted me to be a priest. Studied for years to understand tax and now I am priest class:D

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

Is this case the same one as the video that was doing the rounds last year?

I never see any of these videos doing the rounds. I gather they made a complaint to GSOC about a Garda shooting their dog, they gave sworn statements regarding the matter and now the Gardaí have concrete proof that they lied in the statements.

suicide_circus

berettaman wrote: »

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. .the mother wanted me to be a priest. Studied for years to understand tax and now I am priest class:D

the reason you had to study it for years is that it is deliberately convoluted in order to keep the plebs knocking at your door. this is from an accountant in my family btw.

When the video came out they said there was no dog.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I was just reading this article earlier and it appears absurd that this person has a Barrister representing him in his first appearance in this case in the District court, has no 'visible' means of income and yet the 'detatched from reality judge' granted him legal aid. Ok so the judge asked what income he has and was told (and believed) they survive on his wifes carer allowance yet he never asked how they could afford to have a Barrister represent them in the case? The cheapest barrister will be €500-€1000 if not more yet this wasn't queried and the judge simply believed this person has no income just because he isn't getting dole. Ridiculous.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-accused-of-making-false-statements-over-shooting-of-dog-38665926.html

If a sitting TD is “entitled” to it, then so are these poor people. https://www.thejournal.ie/paul-murphy-legal-fees-2752580-May2016/

Boggles

splinter65 wrote: »

I never see any of these videos doing the rounds. I gather they made a complaint to GSOC about a Garda shooting their dog, they gave sworn statements regarding the matter and now the Gardaí have concrete proof that they lied in the statements.

There was definitely a thread and video of a guard discharging his weapon at a dog.

It would appear the dog is safe and sound.

Which is a good news story.