Judgment: 2026-03-05 · Court archive

High Court rejects challenges over multiple solicitor assignments under criminal legal aid scheme

High Court, Judicial Review · [2026] IEHC 117

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Margaret Cawley
  • James Heffernan
  • Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan
  • Aonghus McCarthy
What

High Court rejects challenges over multiple solicitor assignments under criminal legal aid scheme

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • High Court
  • Dún Laoghaire District Court
  • Portlaoise District Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has rejected challenges by two legally aided defendants who argued that District Court judges acted unlawfully by refusing to assign different solicitors from the same firm to separate charges listed together.

The High Court has rejected challenges by two legally aided defendants who argued that District Court judges acted unlawfully by refusing to assign different solicitors from the same firm to separate charges listed together.

Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan held that Margaret Cawley and James Heffernan had each received legal aid and a solicitor of their choice and had not been deprived of legal representation. She found that the District Court judges acted within their discretion by refusing arrangements that would have resulted in different solicitors from Aonghus McCarthy & Co being assigned to individual charges without an application under Regulation 7(4) of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Regulations 1965.

Cawley appeared at Dún Laoghaire District Court in October 2022 on two alleged burglary offences from the same date. A legal aid certificate was granted in solicitor Aonghus McCarthy's name, but the judge refused a request to assign another solicitor from the firm to the second charge. The two charges were later dealt with together in September 2023; one was struck out and Cawley received a one-year bond under the Probation of Offenders Act on the other.

Heffernan appeared at Portlaoise District Court in November 2022 on four charges arising from three dates. The judge granted legal aid but assigned McCarthy across the matters rather than different solicitors from the same firm. The High Court noted that the District Judge had expressly indicated that a Regulation 7(4) application for separate payment could be considered where good reason existed.

Phelan J also found that the Department of Justice's practice of making separate payments where different solicitors from the same firm were assigned, without requiring evidence of a Regulation 7(4) direction, appeared to have no legal basis and did not reflect the statutory scheme.

The applicants were found not entitled to the judicial review relief sought. Final orders were to be dealt with after a further listing, with costs submissions potentially addressing the Department's payment practice.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review