Judgment: 2001-04-03 · Court archive

Supreme Court recommends legal aid for future Proceeds of Crime proceedings

Supreme Court · [2001] IESC 33

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Mr Justice Hardiman
What

Supreme Court recommends legal aid for future Proceeds of Crime proceedings

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court has recommended legal aid for a defendant facing further proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, finding that the complexity of the case made legal representation essential in the interests of justice.

The Supreme Court has recommended legal aid for a defendant facing further proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, finding that the complexity of the case made legal representation essential in the interests of justice.

The case arose after the High Court made an order in July 1999 preventing the defendants from dealing with approximately £300,000. The plaintiff’s case was that the money represented the proceeds of unlawful activity connected with the first-named defendant.

The second and third defendants later sought access to the restrained funds for legal fees and transcripts, as well as a recommendation for assistance under an ad hoc legal aid scheme used in Criminal Assets Bureau-related proceedings.

The High Court refused those applications in November 2000, principally because it considered the information supplied about means and business affairs inadequate.

By the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court, however, the relief sought had narrowed. The applicant was no longer asking for restrained funds to pay approximately £800,000 said to be outstanding for past legal services. Instead, the application concerned funding for future litigation, including a High Court application listed for 24 April 2001.

Mr Justice Hardiman said he would not, on the evidence before the court, have authorised payment from the restrained £300,000 towards past legal costs. The claimed fees were unsupported by vouchers or adequate particulars, while the beneficial ownership of the funds was also insufficiently established.

The legal aid issue was different. The applicant had sworn that he had no significant income or assets and no other means to fund the proceedings. The court found that this assertion had not been effectively challenged.

Given the complex and exceptional statutory jurisdiction involved, the court concluded that representation was essential. It recommended legal aid for the forthcoming litigation at the level of a solicitor and two counsel, while leaving open any question of retrospective legal aid for earlier costs.

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