197 / 406
GAZETTE
JULY/AUGUST
198
Correspondence
The Editor,
Law Society Gazette,
Blackhall Place,
Dublin 7.
May 1985
Dear Sir,
When publishing my letter about the Civil Legal Aid
Scheme in the January/February issue of the
Gazette,
you decided to add two further comments to the effect
that:—
(1) the Pringle Committee's recommendation that the
medical card should be accepted as a passport to
Civil Legal Aid was not implemented; and
(2) the average cost per case handled under the Legal
Aid Scheme is "excessive" and has increased
between the years 1981 and 1982 when, according to
your figures, it stood at £229.
As to your first point, I can only assume that you are
unaware that since May 1983 there has been in existence
an equally extensive "passport" system under which
persons depending on social welfare benefits or
allowances — apart from pay-related benefit — are
entitled to legal aid on payment of a maximum income
contribution of £15. This has eliminated the need for
detailed assessments in a very high proportion of cases
dealt with by the Board.
A "passport" system is, of course, relevant only in the
case of persons on low incomes. It is necessary, in the case
of those on higher incomes, to have a more detailed means
assessment. The Pringle Committee recognised this and
they recommended a means test for this purpose which
was very closely followed in the present Scheme. It is
untrue to suggest that there is "a great deal of enquiry into
means". In the vast majority of cases the statement of
means provided by the applicant is accepted without
further enquiry.
As regards your second comment, the first point I
would like to make is that over 74% of cases handled by
the Board are family law cases which are time-consuming
and expensive to handle. The fact that a family law case
does not result in court proceedings may have little
bearing on the cost involved because negotiations
towards a settlement can often be even more time-
DOCUMENT EXAMINATION
LEGAL AID CASES UNDERTAKEN
M. Ansell, M.A.,
98 The Broadway,
Heme Bay, Kent CT6 8EY,
England.
Tel. (02273) 67929 (24 hours)
consuming than court proceedings. It is, therefore,
illogical to suggest that a drop in the number of cases
which end in court proceedings should automatically
reduce average cost per case. There is no doubt that in
some cases a delay or avoidance of proceedings has
precisely the opposite effect.
As to your suggestion that the cost of the present
Scheme is "expensive", I note that you have produced no
supporting evidence. One of the ways of making an
assessment on this is to make a comparison with cost
figures in another Legal Aid Scheme. Comparisons are
often made with corresponding English Schemes though,
in the case of legal aid, it is not easy to make direct
comparisons because of the fact that there are, in effect,
two separate Schemes in England. According to the
Report published by the English Law Society on the Legal
Aid Scheme for the financial year 1982/83, the average
bill paid under the "Green Form" Scheme was £43 Stg.
(advice only) and £141 Stg. (representation in the
Magistrates Court). Under the Legal Aid Scheme proper,
the average bill paid amounted to £595 Stg. These are bills
paid in respect of the provision of services and do not take
any account of the cost of administration (including
means testing) which, in the same year, amounted to
approximately £17 million Stg. The foregoing figures
certainly do not suggest that the cost of our Scheme can be
described as "excessive". They also bear out my original
point that there is no proof that a private practitioner
Scheme is less expensive than the type of Scheme we have
in this country.
Yours sincerely,
Pearse Rayel,
Chief Executive,
Legal Aid Board,
47 Upper Mount Street,
Dublin 2.
Editorial Note:
The inclusion of persons
depending
on social welfare
benefits announced in 1983 is undoubtedly welcome.
However, as the Board itself says, "There is an unsatis-
factory side to it in that it discriminates against people
who are in employment or derive their income from other
sources".
As to the costs question the Editorial Board is happy to
leave the question as to whether the scheme is excessively
expensive nor not to its reader's judgement.
•
BOOK REVIEWS - (continued from page
177)
literal interpretation of Article 34.3.1.
The author has written a fluent and lively exposition on
aspects of constitutional law. However, as stated earlier,
the book is limited in its scope. A few cavils. Page 187
appears to be continued on page 189 and 188 on 190 — a
printer's slip. There is also an unfortunate slip of the pen
when on page 202 the author relying on
The People
(Attorney General)
-v-
Conmey
[1975] IR 341 writes about
the "unconstitutionality" of the Court of Criminal
Appeal being upheld. This book will be of particular
benefit to persons studying political science. It will also be
of benefit to persons interested in constitutional law.
•
Eamonn G. Hall
185