The High Court has refused a teenager’s challenge to a decision denying him a legal aid certificate in proceedings at Dublin Children’s Court, and remitted his case to the District Court for sentencing.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2011, Mr Justice Hanna held that the judge acted within jurisdiction and applied the legal aid legislation properly. The High Court did not decide whether legal aid should have been granted on the merits. It examined whether the decision-making process respected fair procedures.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as a minor, had pleaded guilty to one charge of threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place. His counsel asked the Children’s Court for legal aid. The judge refused, saying the applicant was “not at risk”; the High Court understood this to mean he was not at risk of imprisonment. The case was adjourned for a probation report.
The applicant argued that the judge had focused on the prospect of custody without adequately considering his means, age and personal circumstances. He also relied on constitutional fair procedures and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the statutory scheme did not create an unrestricted right to free legal aid and that the applicant had been represented throughout the proceedings.
The High Court noted that legal aid under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962, as amended, depends on insufficient means and on the charge’s gravity or exceptional circumstances making aid essential in the interests of justice. It found that the judge had considered the relevant factors. The applicant had legal representation at the hearing, and counsel had put material before the judge on his behalf.
Details about the applicant’s background and health, including a need for support in school and previous treatment, came to light after the Children’s Court hearing. The High Court said those later details could not affect its review of the earlier decision, though they might matter at a later stage. It also rejected the argument that the applicant’s refusal to apologise should have alerted the judge to a need for legal aid.
The court held that the refusal did not breach Article 6, referring to Ireland’s reservation concerning the extent of free legal aid. It declined to intervene in advance of sentencing, noting that legal aid could be sought again and that the District Court would have to respect the applicant’s legal and constitutional rights at that stage. The relief sought was denied, and the matter was remitted for sentencing.