The Gazette 1981

SEPTEMBER 1981

GAZETTE

covered by the S c h eme, yet where a landlord withholds a deposit of £ 100, will the tenant not be eligible for legal aid to sue for its return? Another strange anomaly is that whereas legal advice (as o pp o s ed to aid) is available for unfair dismissal c a s e s, representation before an Emp l o yme nt Appeals Tribunal is disallowed. One must therefore g o ahead alone, await the Tribunal's decision before lodging an appeal in the Circuit Court and only then will a legal aid application be entertained. Small wonder therefore that test c a s es are also specifically excluded. In the end, if one has successfully weathered the form filling requirements of the me a ns test, one may for s ome reason find the solicitor unsuitable for, or not amenable to one's particular problem — a fairly c o mm on occurrence in legal practice. If such be the case, one has the happy option of travelling from, say, Cork to Limerick or Waterford to see another Law Centre Solicitor (the extra cost of so doing will not, of course, be underwritten by the scheme). Indeed, in a family c a s e, a husband and wife cannot in any circumstances be represented by the same Law Centre. Thu s, for example, a wife from Clonmel goes to the Cork centre while the husband must therefore attend the Limerick Centre, and for any District Court proceedings in Clonmel the solicitors from both the Cork and Limerick Centres must travel to defend their respective clients. ( H ow the solicitors also find time to deal with callers at the Centre is amazing). Can this be seen as effective use of the taxpayers' mo n ey and, more importantly, does it afford a "Ch o i ce of Lawy e r" in any real sense? T o extemporise further on the other shortcomings of the S c h eme might render the writer liable to a charge of unadulterated bias. The S c h eme is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, even if it will have to be brought d own a side street to get it back on the main road. A small beginning is being ma de in the Churchfield area of Cork city, where a service being offered, though quite un connected with the Law Centre, has s ome of the essential ingredients for a Commu n i ty Law Centre, in the sense used in the Pringle Report. Cork Education Rights Centre The Cork Education-Rights Centre originally set up as part of the n ow defunct Comb at Poverty Group's Resource Projects has provided a weekly advice session for the past eighteen mo n t h s, having evolved from a series of public education courses, ma nn ed by y o u ng lawyers o n a voluntary basis. T o date there has been a steady flow of enquiries and, such is the g o od relationship with the solicitors in the Cork Law Centre, that any urgent cases, which obviously c ome within the terms of the State S c h eme, are referred there. It should be stressed that, in terms of individual casework the Cork Law Centre offers a far superior service. Howe v e r, what the Churchfield ex- periment lacks in this regard is c omp e n s a t ed for by the emphasis on public education, self-help and self-reliance. Mo st of the personnel working in the Education-Rights Centre are local people and since De c emb er 1 9 8 0, due to a total Government cut in the Project's funding, all concerned — even the full-time staff - are working without payment. The lawyers (solicitors, barristers and academics), as with their local co-workers, are referred lo as "rcsourcc workers" and, with the client's consent.

the Scheme's narrow base and application, It is worrying that it has succeeded in splitting the ranks of those pressing for a comprehensive legal aid scheme, while in its very make up it d o es not allow r o om for expansion. N o doubt the Minister for Justice is careful not to waste taxpayers' mo n e y, yet the S c h eme has necessitated the Legal Aid Board o c c u p y i ng a premises at a reported rent of £ 2 5 , 0 0 0 per annum. The mo st serious drawback in the present S c h eme is one which cannot readily be cured by further expansion. It will require a radical restructuring. The Law Centres are located in major cities and t owns with no concessions for those living in outlying areas; for instance, twenty counties have no L aw Centre; the midlands have no Law Centre; s ome b o dy living in We st Cork may have to travel eighty miles to the nearest Law Centre. There are apparently plans to o p en weekly or fortnightly "clinics'", as soon as premises b e c ome available in the larger towns; but is it realistic, even on a broad reading, to claim that will offer an "effective" and practical right of a c c e s s" as set out in the J o h a nna Airey case? There is no travel allowance ma de for clients wh o must be inspired to hear of the Scheme, which has received spartan publicity from the Department of Justice in a few scattered press and T . V, ads — a far cry f r om the vigorous T . V. licence spongers campaign. Th ey ma ke the journey without even certain knowledge that the c a se will be handled. Yet the opening of an ever-increasing number of Law Centres could not be cost-effective from the taxpayers' point of view, nor would a full-time centre be necessary in ma ny cases. What is required is the assistance of the private legal profession, as suggested in the Pringle Report, but which remains wholly outside the scope of the present Scheme. In practice, in an eme r g e n c y, one gathers there is no problem; indeed, a Court c a se may be heard and c om- pleted before the applicant's me a ns have been assessed and the requisite Legal Aid Certificate issued. In all other cases, however, there is a strict me a ns test, which, despite relaxation by a Ministerial Order effective as of February 1st 1 9 8 1, would still exclude ma ny wh o could not be described as comfortably-off. There is a built-in bias favouring people with property whereby a £ 2 , 0 0 0 per annum allowance is ma de for mortgage instalments, whereas a person living in Local Authority housing will only receive an allowance in respect of rent paid. It is ironic to note that in view of her me a n s, Mrs. Johanna Airey who attended the Cork Law Centre during its first week of operation has, in lieu of legal aid under the S c h eme, received an offer from the Government to cover the reasonable legal c o s ts for her High Court separation petition. While the offer, ma de to c omp ly with the requirement for "just satisfaction," under Article 5 0 of the European Convention, will afford Mrs. Airey the result she has sought for so long, it is questionable whether the me ans to that end are wholly to her pleasing — not every distraught wife will receive such special treatment. The S c h eme also operates a system of excluded cases which is both imprecise and arbitrary: one such exclusion is, according to the Department of Justice, "civil bills for sums below £ 1 5 0 . " In the first place, the correct terminology is "civil p r o c e s s" and not "civil bill," in the second place, are all such causes, irrespective of their nature, excluded? For e x amp l e, landlord-tenant cases arc

169