The High Court refused the relief sought by Pamela Bird in a challenge concerning the refusal of legal aid for a District Court charge involving theft of food and clothing valued at €70.
In a judgment delivered on 11 June 2008, Mr Justice John Hedigan said the case had been heard with a separate case because essentially the same issues arose. He said the evidence that the presenting garda had consistently considered Bird to be “at risk” of imprisonment was accepted by the respondent.
The judgment said that, three days after the District Court judge’s decision on legal aid, Bird received a nine-month custodial sentence from another District Court judge for a separate theft conviction. Four weeks later, she received a six-month suspended sentence in another matter in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. She had legal aid on both occasions. The judgment said those outcomes were not known or brought to the attention of the judge when he considered her legal aid application.
Justice Hedigan said a renewed legal aid application might be considered. If the judge were told about Bird’s other convictions and the two later sentences, he said, the judge would have to recuse himself if Bird did not plead guilty. The case could then be transferred to another District Court judge.
The court did not grant the requested relief. The judgment said that if a renewed application were refused and Bird then received a custodial sentence, that might provide a more appropriate basis for a further application to the High Court.
The judgment also set out the District Court judge’s role in legal aid decisions: the judge considers the gravity of the charges and may refuse a certificate if the offences are not likely to lead to imprisonment. The prosecution’s role, if asked, is to express an opinion about that risk; the judge decides whether to accept it.