169 / 298
GAZETTE
SEPTEMBER 1981
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
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.
169