The Gazette 1981

GAZETTE

SEPTEMBER 1981

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."

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

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

168