The High Court has found that a District Court judge wrongly granted three legal aid certificates when no applications had been made for them. The applicant was entitled to an order quashing that decision, but the court invited further submissions on the consequential order, including costs.
The judicial review concerned four prosecutions listed for the first time in the District Court on 16 May 2018. The applicant’s solicitor applied for a legal aid certificate for one prosecution, brought by Garda Eoin Martin. No application was made for the other three, brought by Garda Alan O’Dowd. The District Judge said he would grant certificates for all four, and four certificates were issued the following day.
The applicant sought certiorari to quash the decision to grant certificates for the three O’Dowd prosecutions. The judgment noted that the dispute arose against the background of legal aid fees and a regulation under which multiple certificates for cases heard together or in immediate succession are generally treated as one, unless the court directs otherwise for good reason. But the court said the central question was whether certificates could be granted without applications.
Under section 2(1) of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962, the District Court may grant a certificate “on application being made to it in that behalf”. The judge held that an application was therefore required before a certificate could be granted. The parties did not dispute that only one application had been made, so the judge concluded that the District Judge was wrong to issue certificates for the other three prosecutions.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the regulation gave the court discretion not to treat multiple certificates as one. The judge rejected that submission, saying it assumed applications for the certificates had been made, which had not happened.
The High Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought. It did not set out the consequential order in the judgment: because the judgment was delivered electronically, the parties were invited to make submissions on that order, including costs. The judgment does not record what order was ultimately made on those matters.