Difficult-to-access civil legal aid system in dire need of overhaul

Many people are being denied justice due to scheme’s strict qualifying criteria, writes Shane Phelan

THE Department of Justice is coming under mounting pressure to allow for radical reform of the civil legal aid system, amid concerns it is too difficult for many people to access.

The Legal Aid Board has asked the department to loosen its purse strings to allow greater access to the scheme and for the relaxing of rules requiring certain categories of clients, such as domestic violence victims, to make a contribution towards their legal costs.

In theory, the civil legal aid system allows people who could not normally afford legal representation a means of getting advice and, if necessary, vindication of their rights in court.

But in practice, many people who could reasonably be classed as poor do not meet eligibility criteria, and even those who do are still expected to make a minimum contribution of €130 towards their legal costs. Certain types of cases are not catered for, such as land disputes. The scheme cannot be used for representation at Social Welfare Appeals and Employment Appeals Tribunals.

There are also incredibly long waiting times for consultations, with people waiting up to 32 weeks for an initial meeting in some parts of the country.

The Irish Independent has learned that changes to eligibility criteria and contribution rules were sought by the Legal Aid Board in a submission to the department before the Budget. However, it has yet to receive a decision on the requested changes. The board only saw its funding increase in the Budget by €1.25m, to €40.2m, for 2018 and that money has been earmarked for tackling waiting lists, consolidating services and funding pay rises, rather than the eligibility criteria and contribution changes sought by the board.

In a statement, it said it had submitted a detailed report to Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan regarding financial eligibility criteria.

The board said the report also “sets out possible changes with regard to case types where a client would no longer be required to pay a contribution towards their legal services”.

Under the regulations, a person needs to have an annual disposable income of less than €18,000 and disposable assets of less than €100,000.

However, both Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC), a non-profit human rights agency promoting access to justice, and the Law Society, which represents and regulates solicitors, said the criteria needed to be urgently reviewed.

People are allowed to deduct €8,000-a-year for accommodation and spousal maintenance costs when calculating disposable income.

But FLAC said the figure, which equates to just €667 per month, was much too low in the current rental market, while it also fell well short of a typical monthly mortgage repayment.

It also cited changes made in 2013 which reduced the value

of disposable assets a person can have to less than €100,000. The figure had previously been €300,000. FLAC said this excluded people who may be asset rich but cash poor, such as farmers or other self-employed people who own land and machinery, but have relatively low disposable incomes.

It also said there were deserving

cases who missed out as their disposable income fell marginally outside the limit.

“We came across a family who were involved in an issue with a hospital in relation to the care of their seriously ill child, and court proceedings were being contemplated,” said FLAC chief executive Eilis Brennan.

“They were just outside of

the legal aid board threshold. We would argue that aside from means tests, in certain particular cases, people just need access to the courts and the Legal Aid Board should have discretion to grant legal aid.”

Ms Brennan also said that while the board could waive or accept a lower contribution from clients if it would cause

undue hardship, applicants were unaware of this.

The contributions have caused considerable controversy in recent months after FLAC published details of the case of a domestic violence victim whose husband had threatened to kill her. She represented herself in court as she could not afford the necessary €130 contribution.

FLAC said the scheme excluded people who may be asset rich but cash poor, such as farmers