Judgment: 2015-05-14 · Court archive

High Court dismisses challenge to refusal of legal aid

The court found the District Judge could not be faulted for not considering a statement of means that counsel had not brought to his attention.

High Court · [2015] IEHC 300

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Tony King (Applicant)
  • Director of Public Prosecutions
What

The court found the District Judge could not be faulted for not considering a statement of means that counsel had not brought to his attention.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Hanna held that the applicant had not shown the judge acted unlawfully when refusing legal aid in November 2013. The judgment said the review concerned the decision making process, not whether the refusal was correct on its merits.

The High Court has dismissed Tony King’s judicial review challenge to a District Court judge’s refusal to grant him a criminal legal aid certificate.

Mr Justice Hanna held that the applicant had not shown the judge acted unlawfully when refusing legal aid in November 2013. The judgment said the review concerned the decision making process, not whether the refusal was correct on its merits.

King had pleaded guilty to an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. His counsel applied for legal aid after the judge had set a €300 payment to Focus Ireland, with the prosecution to be struck out if it was paid by the next court date; otherwise, King would be convicted and fined €600. The judge refused the application, saying King could pay his lawyers and making a remark about his band.

King argued that the judge had made no proper inquiry into his means, the gravity of the charge or exceptional circumstances. His solicitor’s affidavit said a completed statement of means was in counsel’s hand as counsel was trying to give it to the court. It described King as receiving social welfare and €40 a week from trainee barber work, paying rent to his parents, and having no savings or assets. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the legal aid decision was not suitable for judicial review and that the case was moot after the prosecution ended.

The judge found that the evidence indicated the District Judge had considered the offence’s gravity, including by using the Probation of Offenders Act. He also found no demonstrated failure to consider King’s means. The statement of means had not been brought to the judge’s attention, and counsel could have raised the issue at the return date, the judgment said. The judge found no evidence of impulsive or oppressive conduct amounting to unlawfulness.

The judicial review leave order had not granted a stay. At the January 2014 return date, an adjournment pending the review was refused; King paid €300 and the prosecution was struck out. The High Court dismissed the case, concluding that it had ended and the fine had been paid.

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