High Court hearing challenge to Legal Aid Flat-Fee scheme

Solicitor John Quinn of Dublin-based firm John M Quinn & Co Solicitors is seeking to have the new regulations quashed.

A High Court challenge to the Government's controversial overhaul of the criminal legal aid payment system is before the court today.

Solicitor John Quinn of Dublin-based firm John M Quinn & Co Solicitors is seeking to have the new regulations quashed.

The judicial review proceedings, Quinn v Minister for Justice, challenge a statutory instrument signed by the Minister for Justice that replaces the long-standing payment model for District Court criminal legal aid with a single flat fee of €520 per case.

The application, which is before the High Court this morning, follows a decision by Mr Justice Anthony Barr last Thursday (July 2) to grant Mr Quinn leave to bring judicial review proceedings, finding the challenge met the threshold for arguability and raised issues of “significant public interest” affecting both solicitors and the operation of the criminal justice system.

Court proceedings across the country have been disrupted by the decision by solicitors on criminal legal aid panels to withdraw their services on bail matters.

The new regulations have prompted widespread opposition throughout the legal profession.

Last week saw solicitors from Cork and Mayo resign from the criminal legal aid panels there, with legal professionals in Cavan set to meet on Thursday this week (July 9) to decide whether or not to take a similar tact.

Under the previous legal aid system, solicitors were assigned legal aid certificates on a per-charge basis and received payment for each certificate when the matter concluded.

Appearing for Mr Quinn at the ex parte leave application, Feichín McDonagh SC is set to argue that three principal grounds underpin the challenge.

First, it is claimed that the regulations are ultra vires the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962. In that respect it iis contended that while section 10 of the Act permits the Minister to prescribe “rates or scales of payment”, fixing payment at effectively zero for additional legal aid certificates cannot properly be described as a lawful rate of payment.

Secondly, the proceedings contend the regulations conflict with the Solicitors' Professional Practice, Conduct and Discipline Regulations 1988, which prohibit solicitors from accepting appointments on a fixed fee irrespective of the work required. The argument here, put forward by Mr Quinn is that the new legal aid model compels solicitors to do precisely that, regardless of how many court appearances, adjournments or additional charges arise.

Thirdly, the challenge alleges that because payment is deferred until a case is finalised, solicitors may perform extensive work over numerous court appearances yet receive no remuneration if, for example, an accused absconds and proceedings are never concluded.

Mr Quinn is seeking orders quashing the statutory instrument introducing the new payment regime and has also sought interim relief suspending its operation pending determination of the proceedings.

The Minister for Justice is the respondent to the proceedings, with the Law Society of Ireland named as a notice party.