The High Court has dismissed a farmer’s challenge to the legal aid available to defendants facing summary proceedings in the District Court. The farmer argued that the law was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution because it did not provide for publicly funded counsel alongside a solicitor.
The proceedings concerned section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962. Under that section, the District Court may grant a legal aid certificate where a person lacks the means to obtain legal aid and assistance is essential in the interests of justice. The judgment said the certificate permits assignment of a solicitor; its provision for counsel in murder cases had become redundant after changes to criminal procedure.
The plaintiff was facing a prosecution brought by the Minister for Agriculture over alleged animal disease control offences. He had received 42 summonses, including allegations concerning movement of restricted animals, animal identity cards, herd records and blood testing. He intended to plead not guilty. The District Court had granted him a legal aid certificate, but his summonses were adjourned pending the outcome of the High Court proceedings. The judgment did not determine the allegations in the prosecution.
The plaintiff’s solicitor and another experienced solicitor told the court that the volume and complexity of the charges, and their potential consequences, made counsel necessary. The court found that these prosecutions were more complex than the generality of District Court cases. It nevertheless concluded that the evidence did not establish that a qualified solicitor exercising ordinary professional skill and care could not adequately defend the plaintiff, or that solicitor-only representation created a risk of an unfair trial.
The judge also rejected the argument that the prosecution’s use of counsel required equivalent representation for the defence. In the court’s view, a difference in the number or qualifications of lawyers did not itself breach fairness where a solicitor could represent the accused effectively.
The court held that section 2 was compatible with the State’s Convention obligations, including the fair-trial and equality provisions raised by the plaintiff. It also held that the section did not breach the constitutional protections invoked in the case. The judge first considered the Convention claim and, after rejecting it, considered the constitutional challenge. The order dismissed the plaintiff’s claim; it did not decide the pending criminal charges.