The High Court has quashed a District Court decision granting two legal aid certificates to Declan King after finding that no applications had been made for certificates covering each matter.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 9 February 2022, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan granted certiorari over the District Court decision of 6 March 2021. She said the statutory power to grant a certificate could be exercised only where an application had been made.
King had appeared in the District Court facing theft and criminal damage charges. A bench warrant was also before the court in a separate matter under section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, relating to a failure to appear. When asked which solicitor he wanted for “these matters”, King named Mr Bradbury. The judge later granted legal aid certificates covering the section 13 matter and one further charge sheet.
The High Court found that King’s response identified his solicitor of choice; it was not an application for legal aid. Mr Bradbury made an application at the end of the hearing, but expressly sought a certificate for one matter only. The judge said that the solicitor’s presence and agreement to act on all matters meant King was represented, including while being remanded in custody. That did not supply the missing applications for certificates.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that King’s nomination of Mr Bradbury for the matters could be treated as an application, and that the judicial review was premature because the District Court might later direct that separate certificates remain separate under Regulation 7(4) of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Regulations 1965. The judge rejected both arguments: a later direction could not cure the original jurisdictional problem, and the possibility that the matters might not be heard together did not resolve it.
The court also noted that uncertainty over payment for legally aided work could potentially affect the resources committed to a client’s representation. But it said solicitor payment rates were irrelevant to the application and did not order changes to the legal aid scheme. The order quashed the decision identified in the notice of motion; the judge said she would hear the parties on any consequential matters.