The Gazette 1981

SEPTEMBER 1981

GAZETTE

Airey who in 1973 decided to bring a case against Ireland in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Using the individual petition procedure, Mrs. Airey claimed that she had no "effective and practical" access to a court, while realising that the right to free legal aid in civil proceedings was not as such, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. Since 1972, Mrs. Airey had attempted to obtain a decree of judicial separation in the High Court against her allegedly violent husband. She could not afford to pay the legal costs (estimated at between £ 5 0 0- £ 1,000, depending on whether the action was contested) and by the same token was unable to find a solicitor prepared to handle her case without the guarantee of costs being forthcoming. The Court finally gave its judgment in October 1 9 7 9, finding Ireland in breach of the Human Rights Convention. The following day the Government issued a statement that there was "a definite Government commitment as far as the availability of civil legal aid is concerned". In fact Counsel gave the Court an assurance at the hearing that a Legal Aid Scheme would be introduced. Most critics would agree that such a commitment appeared singularly lacking when F . L . A . C. sought support and this was so even with Mrs. Airey's case pending in Strasbourg; acute embarrassment was covered with rhetoric. Scheme for Civil Legal Aid and Advice T o get off the European hook, the Government was now forced to introduce a cheap, quick remedy. Thus in December 1 9 7 9, the Minister for Justice laid before the Dáil a Scheme for Civil Legal Aid and Advice, a short 89-page booklet which makes dry reading after the liberal Pringle Report. In it, the Minister recommended a Scheme bearing no resemblance to the recommendations of the earlier expert Committee. Instead of dealing in "rights" and "needs," it is couched in the language of the dispensary system. Whereas the medical service has now progressed at last to the 'Choice of Doctor Scheme,' the Minister for Justice in his own wisdom and without public debate sought to and succeeded in institutionalising a 'Poor Law' system of delivering legal services. The scheme was not introduced as a Bill in Dáil Éireann, rather on an administrative basis, so bypassing the demo- cratic process. The Scheme has overlooked the private profession — the country's greatest legal resource — preferring to set up so-called "Law Centres" working parallel to private practitioners, staffed by full-time lawyers, who will deal exclusively with poor people's problems. As the lawyers only have a mandate to engage in orthodox casework, the use of the word "Law Centre" is confusing, perhaps deliberately so. The seven centres which opened their doors to the public in August 1 9 80 are located in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Ga l wa y, Sligo and two in Dublin. To date, the Cork Centre has dealt with some 4 0 0 cases while the Dublin centres are inundated with clients and, despite taking on extra staff, have had to refuse further work for a time. At last the worst cases are being handled by qualified lawyers — the battered wives have a refuge; indeed s ome 6 5% of all cases handled in the Cork centre concern marital problems. F . L . A . C. has, incidentally, ceased to take further casework and thus the load has been transferred to the new Law Centres. A team of dedicated young lawyers have been employed and g o od work is being done. What causes concern nevertheless, is

qualified lawyer who does not take individual cases) was employed by F . L . A . C. to lisaise with local groups and pinpoint problems requiring attention. Thus, a campaign was undertaken on the following issues: firstly, Deserted Wives Allowances and the issue of split payments; secondly, a survey on the operation of Barring Orders in family disputes, particularly with regard to their enforcement; thirdly, the divorce issue was discussed by the Management Committee which, in December 1978, decided to organise a public meeting to press for the introduction of divorce legislation. The campaign is n ow carried on through the medium of the Divorce Action Group. It is precisely this aspect of the Centre's work which both the Minister for Justice and his Department have refused to accept, let alone encourage. It would appear that such people desire to see only a steady increase in the number of cases dealt with, so that those running the Centre b e c ome so totally preoccupied with running from Court to appointment and back again, that there should be no time to research the Centre's effectiveness nor to consider potential test cases. Due to this clash with the Department of Justice, the Centre has had major financial difficulties. The day of reckoning arrived with the introduction of the Government's Legal Aid Scheme in August, 1980. Politically, the Coolock Community Law Centre was well located in the constituency of the then Taoiseach and, with the tragedy at the Stardust Club in February 1981, the Centre's existence seems assured for the foreseeable future, given that the Centre's Solicitor has been appointed by the Government to represent relatives of the disaster victims. Yet, the Minister's lack of flexibility and imagination does not augur well for the chances of setting up further Community Law Centres in other parts of the country. For example, a suggestion in 1979 that a Law Centre should be set up in the borough of Dun Laoghaire was rejected out of hand by the Minister, despite widespread support locally for the idea. The Pringle Report When the Pringle Committee made its Report to the Minister for Justice in December 1977, it also lent its voice to the demand for the setting up of further Community Law Centres to be staffed on a full-time basis and which, in addition to casework, would "participate in any appropriate activities in the Community which would be likely to enhance the status of the centre and would be consistent with the provision of a comprehensive legal aid and advice service for the Community." 4 The Committee also suggested a parallel panel system calling on the skills of private practitioners who would take cases after a means test, to be re imbursed thereafter by a Legal Aid Fund — such a scheme has operated successfully in the U . K. for many years. In addition, such lawyers should be permitted to give £ 15 worth of legal advice without first carrying out the means test. N o readily available explanation can be offered for the Government's decision to ignore completely the findings of an expert committee which, after 3 | years deliberation, produced a worthy 289-page report (which even included a Draft Legal Aid bill, begging introduction). And yet now the Pringle Report is merely of historical interest. The story might well have ended here but for the courage and tenacity of one Cork woma n, Mrs. Johanna

168