Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should free legal aid be limited

  • 03-11-2022 1:42pm
    #1
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭


    Should free legal aid be limited?

    I was able to see our legal system in action recently as a juror, it was an eye opening experience there was a lot of time and resources wasted.

    I know anybody can be accused in the wrong of committing a crime and should be able to get representation to ensure a fair trial but if you have career criminals with a string of convictions when does enough become enough?

    Two possible solutions:

    If you are convicted you have pay for the legal representation yourself and you will not be entitled to free representation again until the previous bill has been paid. This might also encourage guilty parties to plead guilty early instead of dragging cases out at tax payers expense.

    Two strikes rule, two convictions and free legal aid is no longer available to you in order to discourage career criminals.

    Its also crazy that previous convictions cannot be discussed in court I know its to try and prevent prejudice but if you have a history of committing a particular crime surely the jury should be made aware of the so they can make an informed decision.



Comments

  • #2
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It is to the benefit of everyone for defendants to be well represented in court. If someone cannot afford legal representation and ends up doing a half baked job of representing themselves for example, it will just undermine justice and potentially make the experience far worse for the victim also.



  • #3
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    A Public Defenders office, in much the same way as the American system should be the way to go.

    As it is a group of solicitors are making a fortune from the Free Legal Aid system, some becoming multi-millionaires on the back of it.

    To answer your question though, I think a limit of three turns in the Circuit court and probably one in the Central Criminal.

    For the district court three to five times within say a time period of 3/4/5 years.

    Likewise for High Court Applications. One or two every five years or more should suffice there. The amount of frivolous HC cases taken by prisoners, for example, is ridiculous but as there's no cost to them then they can't lose. The taxpayer loses though.



  • #4
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828395#Comment_119828395

    Could you give an example of a frivolous HC case that qualified for legal aid?



  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828234#Comment_119828234

    I understand that, that's why I'm not suggesting abolishing it altogether just limiting how much/often a person can avail of it. I disagree that the absence of free legal aid for regular offender would make the experience for the the victim far worse, if anything it drags cases out and results in reduced or mitigated penalties for crimes committed.



  • #6
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,799 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I think the judge granting legal aid should be a grant of means tested legal aid where the accused means are examined and an appropriate level of funding granted.

    Also, the defendant should be allowed to seek representation from a panel of lawyers that provide legal aid services, or lawyers who will accept such work at the rate of legal aid fees.

    There have been a significant number of convicted murders* appealing lost causes to the CoA, and SC. Who pays the fees for this?


    *I am thinking of specific cases of household names that have failed in their appeals.



  • Advertisement
  • #7
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828408#Comment_119828408


    There was a fairly recent one of a prisoner who was transferred back from Shelton Abbey to Wheatfield because he was intoxicated. He challenged the decision in the HC and lost.

    There was another case a couple of years ago of a Cork prisoner bringing a case because there was no in-cell sanitation. He was offered transfers but refused as he wanted to stay in Cork. He also took the case to the HC and lost.

    An infamous prisoner in Mountjoy was constantly trying to get cases into the HC, not enough blankets, not enough food, not enough exercise time, cells too cold etc. You name it he tried it. Very few got very far but he still got to see his (free) legal representatives every time.

    The UK withdrew free legal aid for prisoners 7 or 8 years ago for this reason. The only time it's available there now is in cases concerning release / false imprisonment type cases (Habeus Corpus / Certiorari ) and a few other exceptional ones.



Advertisement