The High Court refused the relief sought by Dolores Mannion in a judicial review challenging how the Legal Aid Board handled her application for legal aid to bring proceedings against the Board and a firm of solicitors. Mr Justice McGovern delivered judgment on 7 December 2007.
Mannion argued that a Board-employed solicitor should not assess or process her application because she intended to sue the Board. She sought, among other relief, to have the Board’s decision refusing a private solicitor quashed and to challenge the legality and fairness of the legal aid arrangements. At the hearing, she no longer pursued an order requiring the Board to assign a solicitor other than one of its employees.
The dispute arose from a negligence action relating to an apartment she bought in Tralee in 1989. She had sued the Board and Ferrys after becoming dissatisfied with the handling of earlier proceedings. Her action was adjourned while her legal aid application was delayed.
The Board told Mannion that it had no panel of private solicitors for the type of High Court proceedings she proposed, and that it could provide a salaried solicitor. After she raised concerns about conflicts of interest, the Board introduced procedures for applications to sue it. Under those procedures, applications were handled at its Cahirciveen head office on a restricted-circulation basis, separate from the Dublin office dealing with the Board’s defence. The procedure also provided for a Board solicitor to review the application and forward a professional opinion.
Mannion objected that the procedure could expose confidential counsel’s advice to the Board. The Board maintained that staff defending claims against it would not have access to confidential information about the applicant’s case. The other respondents argued that the legislation set reasonable limits on legal aid and that no constitutional or Convention breach had been established.
The court held that the Board had discretion to provide legal services through its own solicitors or through a panel. It had not created a panel for the High Court services Mannion sought, and the judge said the Board could not engage a private solicitor for her outside such a panel. A Board-employed solicitor was therefore the available route under the statutory scheme.
The judge rejected the claims that the legislation, regulations or the Board’s procedures breached constitutional justice or rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. He found the safeguards sufficient to keep those processing legal aid applications separate from lawyers defending the Board, and considered Mannion’s concern about the arrangements unreasonable in light of those safeguards.
The court refused the relief sought. The judgment does not record a separate order on damages or costs.