The High Court has refused an application to quash the Legal Aid Board’s decision to terminate Bryan O’Duffy’s legal aid certificate, finding the decision did not fly in the face of fundamental reason and common sense.
Mr Justice Michael White delivered judgment on 26 January 2012 in judicial review proceedings. The certificate had been granted in 2007 to fund Circuit Court equity proceedings challenging a deed that Mr O’Duffy alleged transferred his interest in a family home to his spouse without his signature. The court’s judgment recounts that the proceedings concerned a home acquired in Celbridge, County Kildare, in 1976.
The Board terminated the certificate on 1 April 2011 under regulation 9(3)(c) of the Civil Legal Aid Regulations 1996, after his solicitor reported that the case should no longer be funded. An appeal committee upheld the termination on 19 May 2011.
The solicitor’s view of the case had changed after receiving a forensic document examiner’s report. The report was not definitive, but indicated handwriting evidence supporting the proposition that Mr O’Duffy wrote the questioned signature. The examiner also raised concerns about the gap between the dates of the deed and comparison signatures, and said he had examined photocopies rather than the original declarations. Counsel had advised obtaining a specimen signature from around 1998 and arranging inspection of the original declarations. The judgment records that the examination was expected to take place as part of a Garda investigation, but the requested specimen signatures had not been provided.
Mr O’Duffy challenged the termination and said the appeal committee had not adequately considered his case. He also complained that there had been no oral appeal hearing. The judge said he was entitled to challenge both the original termination and the appeal decision, and allowed him to argue the oral-hearing point.
The court found no evidence that either decision was irrational or contrary to common sense. It said the appeal committee had sufficient written documentation, Mr O’Duffy had not sought an oral hearing, there was no conflict of fact in the appeal materials, and the regulations did not require an oral appeal hearing. The judge said a more detailed minute or written reasons for the appeal decision would have been preferable, but found no basis to overturn it.
The court refused certiorari on all grounds. The judgment addressed only the termination of legal aid; it did not decide the underlying dispute over the deed of assignment.