The High Court has ruled that a Circuit Court judge may grant a legal aid certificate for counsel on an appeal from the District Court where counsel’s assistance is essential in the interests of justice. It nevertheless refused a judicial review challenge by Martin Ward, finding he had not shown even the possibility that he could qualify.
Ward had pleaded guilty in the District Court in June 2014 to dangerous driving, driving while intoxicated, driving without insurance, and related offences. The court imposed consecutive five-month prison terms for three offences, fines of €2,000 on each of those charges and a 40-year driving disqualification. He appealed against sentence to the Circuit Court.
During the part-heard appeal, Ward applied for legal aid for counsel. The judge refused, ruling that she had no jurisdiction because no certificate for counsel had been granted for the earlier District Court proceedings. Ward sought judicial review, arguing that the judge could consider his application and that the non-statutory scheme governing counsel assistance unlawfully made an earlier District Court certificate a prerequisite.
The respondents argued that the scheme allowed counsel on appeal only where a District Court certificate had been granted. They also said Ward’s offences and proposed sentencing arguments did not meet the exceptional threshold for counsel, and that he lacked standing to challenge the scheme.
Justice Iseult O’Malley said the scheme had to be read to permit a Circuit Court judge to grant a certificate where changed circumstances or other proper grounds made counsel essential in the interests of justice. The absence of an application, or a refusal, in the District Court would not itself prevent the Circuit Court from considering the matter. The judge said this reading was consistent with the legal aid legislation and the earlier decision in *Brett v District Judge Coughlan*.
But O’Malley accepted the respondents’ argument that Ward lacked sufficient legal interest to bring the challenge. Although he had been granted leave to seek judicial review, that was only a preliminary finding on standing. Ward had provided no evidence that his case was more grave or complex than the norm for District Court cases. The judge also noted that his application came midway through a sentence hearing and found no evidence that the “one transaction” argument required specialist advocacy.
The court refused the reliefs sought. It did not grant Ward a certificate for counsel or decide that he was entitled to one; its conclusion was that he had not established a basis to pursue the challenge. The judgment was delivered on 11 December 2015.