Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FIANNA FÁIL’S JUSTICE spokesman Jim O’Callaghan has called for the government to “carefully consider and act upon” remarks made by a District Court judge in which he called for mandatory legal aid for all domestic violence cases.
Opposition justice spokespeople have also called for the legal aid income threshold to be revised, with Labour’s Aodhán Ó Ríordán pledging to raise Judge John Campbell’s remarks with Minister for Justice Helen McEntee when the Dáil resumes.
Speaking at a conference on domestic violence and child protection on Friday, Judge Campbell said “the working poor very often will lose out” on legal aid due to the “strict requirements” in place.
The judge said the court can make an order that they be provided with legal aid, but they do not qualify as a right “which hampers the fair procedure of the case”.
In order to quality for legal aid, you must have an annual disposable income of less than €18,000 and disposable assets of less than €100,000.
There is no contribution required in child-care and domestic violence cases. However, victims still need to come within the disposable income and capital thresholds.
The financial eligibility threshold for income was last revised in 2006, while the threshold for capital assets was last revised in 2013.
Echoing Judge Campbell’s remarks, Jim O’Callaghan told The Journal that legal aid in family law cases should be more broadly available.
“At present, our civil legal aid system does not provide support for most litigants appearing before our family courts. In fact, the vast majority of people are excluded because they must have an annual disposable income of less than €18,000 and disposable assets of less than €100,000,” he said.
“Consequently, most ordinary people before the family courts are excluded and must pay the full costs of legal representation. This can be prohibitive, particularly since many family law cases are prolonged and require many appearances before the courts.”
He added: “It is notable that most people accused of criminal offences get criminal legal aid but there is no equivalent level of support in the civil sphere even though family law cases involve issues and rights of fundamental importance such as the rights of children.”
Labour TD Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has also called for the “extremely low” legal aid threshold to be examined in the wake of the judge’s remarks.
“I think often the judiciary can often be accused of being slow to demand change in what’s in front of them, but certainly in this case, it seems to me that it makes absolute sense that free legal aid be made available to anybody in that sort of situation, particularly when it comes to children,” he told The Journal.
If this is somebody at the coalface who has seen exactly the limitations of the system, I think the political system needs to take that view into consideration and to do something about it.
Ó Ríordáin, who is Labour’s justice spokesperson, said that people can be “put off” by the perception of court battles being extremely expensive.
“In a domestic violence case or child protection case, they’re thinking about the next steps in their lives: where they’re going to live, how they’re going to live, how they’re going to finance the new reality that they’re facing,” he said.
“Having a legal bill on top of that is not something that they really want to countenance. It may make somebody second-guess taking that step.”
He said he will be raising the issue with the Minister for Justice Helen McEntee when the Dáil returns.
“I think any of these areas where people see a part of the system not working for a particular reason, then the political system has to react to that,” he added.
“I’m not in court every day, but this man is, and he sees these very important cases in front of him, and if that’s an issue that he has highlighted as being a problem, that people aren’t getting justice as a result, or protection as a result, well then we have to iron that out.”
In June last year, the Justice Minister established the Civil Legal Aid Review Group to review the current operation of the Civil Legal Aid Scheme and make recommendations for its future.
A consultation process was opened as part of the review. A call for submissions, from key stakeholders, launched in November 2022 and closed on 28 February this year.
A public survey was also launched for those who have experience of the civil legal aid scheme or who have applied for it to inform the review. The survey also closed on 28 February 2023.
In a statement to The Journal, Sinn Féin TD and justice spokesperson Pa Daly said the party made a submission to the review.
“In that submission, we supported the review of income thresholds and we also feel the delays in accessing legal aid must be addressed too,” he said.
“In addition, we raised concerns about the coverage of some parts of the country by solicitors, with many either leaving the scheme or acting for the other party in certain proceedings. The report, under Justice Frank Clarke, will hopefully be published soon, and we eagerly await the government’s response.”
Responding to a Parliamentary Question on the legal aid threshold in April, then-interim Justice Minister Simon Harris said the third strand of consultation, which focused on “hard to reach groups”, was “approaching conclusion”.
He said the results of all elements of the consultation were being reviewed by the Review Group. “This review will include consideration of eligibility thresholds,” he said.
“I am aware of the pressures people are facing at the moment regarding the cost of living and of the potential impact this may have. My officials are working with the Legal Aid Board to examine whether there are steps might feasibly be taken in the short-term pending the outcome of the wider review,” Harris said.
In a statement to The Journal, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice confirmed that eligibility for legal aid in domestic violence cases, and all other cases, is being considered as part of the review of the Civil Legal Aid Scheme.
“The review will allow for an assessment of how flexible and responsive the Scheme is to the needs of those it is intended to serve, including in relation to financial eligibility,” the spokesperson said.
“However, Department officials are also working with the Legal Aid Board to examine whether there are steps that might feasibly be taken with respect to eligibility in the short-term pending the outcome of the wider review.”
The spokesperson also said that work to draft and agree a detailed implementation plan for the Zero Tolerance domestic violence strategy for next year is currently underway.
“At the time of publication, the Minster stated that the Strategy and its implementation plans were to be living documents to which additional actions could be added if needed to best meet need the needs of victims and survivors.”
The spokesperson also acknowledged the publication of the first Family Justice Strategy last November.
The three-year strategy contains nine goals and over 50 actions “that lay the foundation for a reformed, user-friendly and child-centred family justice system that helps children and families obtain earlier, appropriate resolutions in a more effective way”, they said.
Implementation of the strategy is being led by the Family Justice Implementation Group (FJIG), who will consider the work of the Civil Legal Aid Review Group and its report, particularly as to whether the Scheme is meeting the needs of those families who engage with it.
With reporting from Christina Finn
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Free legal aid is one of the greatest burdens on the taxpayer. By all means, give it to ppl who need it but Scrotes with multiple convictions have to be taken to task and made pay for their own legal bills.
@Andy Felthersnatch: The article is about domestic violence and how a judge called it ie free legal aid. Now enlighten me how said scrotes with multiple convictions can pay their own legal bills?
@Paul Gorry: It’s easy peasy even for you.
Picture this, Scrotes are in court for the umpteenth time, it’s determined whether they are working, on the scratcher or have the money to pay for their defence.
If they don’t, they’re awarded FLA but it gets taken from their social welfare.
If the government can bring in USC charges overnight for the ordinary law abiding citizen then they can chase Scrotes at source for FLA fees, fines or compensation for their victims!
@Andy Felthersnatch: Good man ye have just brought the USC charges into the conversation but the said scrotes couldn’t give a flying fluck.
@Paul Gorry: You’re completely missing the point, rehab, community service and jail are a waste of time but taking money off toe-rags and making them responsible for their crimes is exactly what needs to be hammered home. Why should they be propped up by society when society is their victims?
@Andy Felthersnatch: Make your mind up so Andy. You said in your first comment make them pay up or be taken to task. So I guess taking to task is null and void now ?
@Andy Felthersnatch: your comment while popular is one that doesn’t look deeply at the issues. Free legal aid to you is important because free is in it. The most important word in the title is legal. So yes theres probably people with long criminal records taking advantage of the situation but didn’t the monk get his charge overturned recently and not have his legal costs covered. That shows in my view that the state are just as big a scrote as you would meet. Then there is the situation around the legal profession taking large amounts of money off people that cant afford it. Nothing about that. So what you seem to be advocating for is a wild west legal system where funnily enough its poor people will suffer. Why dont we forget the legal system all together and have people shot.
@Andy Felthersnatch: this concerns legal aid in CIVIL cases .
@Andy Felthersnatch: what are you waffling about ? Domestic violence cases are civil cases , not criminal cases .
@Andy Felthersnatch: interesting perspective … if you take away their only form of income because they rob and steal etc … in oder to persuade them to stop … do you think that will work ??
Anyone that remembers the early 90s will remember the robbery epidemic brought on by heroin addiction … the introduction of methadone to reduce the need to steal to feed the habit caused armed robberies to dramatically drop .. can you see the correlation?
@Mic JHintl: the important word is “aid”. The 2nd important and relevant thing here is that it has nothing to do with the criminal law system , unless , a domestic violence order is breached . These cases are dealt with in the civil courts not the criminal courts . Thirdly , not every criminal that goes before the district or circuit criminal courts are career criminals worth billions . Fourthly, the lawyers set out their fees clearly in advance , in writing .Take it or leave it. If they do not put it in writing , report them to the LSRA .In terms of their fees , whether private or legal aid , district court work ( most criminal cases and most domestic violence applications) is peanuts when taking into account the amount of work and time wasted in the court ! . You haven’t a clue as usual
@PAUL C: They’re going to rob anyway, taking part of their dole off them will mean the taxpayer is not wholly paying for their lifestyle choices. I might also add, I’d charge them for their stay in prison.
@Paul Gorry: Taking money off them at source is taking them to task, giving suspended sentences certainly is not.
@Christy Dolan: so you jumped to conclusions as usual. I was directing my criticism of someone who claimed free legal should be dismissed on certain grounds. That was FLA i was talking about. Didn’t mention courts DV family law none of it. My comment was in direct challenge to FLA. So your ad hominen attacks and presuppositional thinking reveals your level of understanding not mine.
@Mic JHintl: Christy Dolan loves writing long winded, hot air novels. He’s only happy when he’s listening to the sound of his own voice.
@Andy Felthersnatch: obviously, you wouldn’t know what a novel looks like if you think that short and accurate statement was one . Poor Andy obviously has issues with facts and sticking to topics that he actually understands. Poor Andy kicks up tantrums when he’s made to look like a fool. Pointing out correct information is not hot air . No one wants to read to your fact devoid opinions (which you clearly love releasing ) which a 15 year old could rebut , easily . Stop trying to over compensate your failures in school and life . You could never be mistaken for an informed person .
@Mic JHintl: Oh, back crying that what you wrote was not what you meant ? Your statement is pig ignorant of fact ! You don’t want you are talking about and it’s been proven beyond doubt . You have no clue as to how the legal system works . No informed person could come to any other conclusion . Like Andy , spare us your over compensating the fact that you failed in life and that no one with any sense would seek your opinion outside of this site . The pretence is laughable .
@Mic JHintl: the topic is about legal aid in Civil cases . You and your pals were waffling about criminal law cases and criminals . Just because your pal Andy is devoid of any clout to discuss relevant issues , that’s no excuse for you. Contrary to the rubbish you spouted the most important title in “Free legal aid” is not “legal”. Then you went blathering on about the legal profession “taking amounts of money off people that can’t afford it” , with no basis for that claim. I addressed it . Your pal the Monk, his legal aid claim was rejected because he clearly had money to fund his legal team and that money came from proceeds of crime .
@Christy Dolan: youre very angry. Are you ok hun.
@Mic JHintl: I’m great . Doing vastly better than you . You are the one getting triggered and wrongly accusing people of jumping to conclusions to divert from the fact that you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about and have a bit of a ego about it . Know your own lace and get back into your box .
I always wondered how Jim O Callaghan can be in the Dail and be a practising barrister in the courts at the same time? I even e mailed his secretary numerous times to ask if Jim has ever left the Dail after clocking in to go act as barrister in the courts. Funnily enough they wouldn’t tell me.
@Michael o connor: how can you fault someone trying to help the disadvantaged in society?
@Michael o connor: the four courts and Dail are barely a mile a way. Obviously , as a National Parliamentarian , big Jim doesn’t have to waste time acting like a parish pump politician looking to fix roads and attending funerals . Dáil chambers does not sit 5 days a week 9 to 5 . Likewise committees . It’s easy enough to do both jobs .
Quick, someone quickly tell Jim he’s in FF and they are in Government.
A family law case can cost anywhere from 5k in the district court to 50k should it go to the circuit court. It all depends on how willing one side is to emotionally and financially cripple the other side, particularly if children are involved. And particularly if one side wishes to use the ‘silver bullet’ or ‘golden bullet.’
@AnthonyK: a domestic violence application , whether defending or applying will not cost you €5k .
Classy judge calls out the government and now they are running around like headless chicken’s.
Still waiting for the reform of our legal system as was set out in the agreement with the Troika. Maybe when these reforms are brought in the cost of legal fees may reduce so less people will need Legal AId, much easier to keep the gravey train running and hit up the taxpayer.
Ffg are the ones who set up the legislation covering the rules around legal aid and yer thier enablers act surprised when there politicians fain outrage and shock
@Robert Halvey: “there politicians fain outrage” good lord man, read more!
@Robert Halvey: Fianna Fáil were not in government when the 2018 legislation came into existence . Why offer a view when you aren’t fit to do so ?
Well at least now they have heard the term ‘working poor’.
The article is not about legal aid for criminals it about family civil law which is very expensive if it gets in the circuit court.
@Áine G: The article is about domestic violence, what if the abused are not married to their partners and have no children, what does family civil law have to do with it?
@Andy Felthersnatch: family no longer are defined by marriage ! Likewise lack of children is irrelevant . You should be careful with you you live with as your partner , you might be liable to some payments if you meet the civil partnership and cohabitation Act of 2010 !!! While it mostly focuses on Civil Partners there are several chapters on de facto hetro couples and liability to maintenance etc . Ah, but you will go whinging about rants and sound of one’s voice again .
@Andy Felthersnatch: see the civil partnership and certain rights and obligations of cohabitants Act 2010 as amended . It covers hetro and same sex long term couples who live together for number of years “like husband and wife” . It might give some of them limited rights to your estate even if you don’t will them anything . They might be eligible for some limited maintenance after break up ! Couples can do own family home together . Hence why family law is relevant .
This is about civil family law, it has nothing to do with criminal law.
@: mother of god , you have zero knowledge yet feel that you know better . Oh course , you wouldn’t say boo in person , certainly not int hat tone . You are taking to people who know the law . What you were told is correct . The threshold and standard is civil law and not criminal law ie reasonable doubt v balance of probability. Domestic violence cases concern orders restricting contact and movement against the victim . It only becomes criminal law if the order is breached . If the bartered spouse / partner wants to get criminal law involved , they go to the police and press criminal charges of assault , serious assault etc . Separate to the domestic violence
@: not in the family district court who consider domestic violence applications such as barring orders , safety orders etc . battered husband needs to go to the police and press criminal charges if he wants the criminal law system to get involved . Then they need to man the f up and put manners on their spouse for having the gall to step out of line like that !
This like the current laws will be abused by women to get the upper hand in a divorce. When a woman makes an accusation, she does not need any proof. She only needs her statement, and doesn’t even need a history of DV. I know because my ex did this to me to retaliate when i asked for a divorce. The burden of proof was on me to prove my innocence and her accusations false. Lucky enough i was able to get such evidence or i would be screwed now. I was treated as guilty until proven innocent and was put out of my home, even after i was still treated as guilty by Tusla and other organisations. Even years after i am still seen as an abuser even though i was not convinced and i was able to produce evidence that she lied. In fact she faced no concquences for her lies and the garda refused to send my statement to the DPP to bring charges against her.
@Danny “DiGi” Muldoon: evidence most certainly will be required especially at the trial part . She will be thoroughly crossed examine in the docks by your lawyer . Women’s NGOs complain about how hard these cases are to prove DV ! . There is a high threshold to meet . No one needs to show a history of domestic violence to give a credible case that one major incident was a recent once off event . The legislation now lists the type of behaviour that can be DV . The burden of proof is on the accuser to show that it happened and that an order will be necessary. It’s your liberty , possibly your property and your reputation on the line , not her’s (if innocent) . interim orders are made against you as an emergency . At full trial where you , for the first time ,get to rebut her claims
@Christy Dolan: other than that , yes , the system can be abused . Absolutely . Interim orders are made as a precaution , without any evidence from you and in absence of your presence . That can mess people up on that fact alone even if it’s lies . but at trial , she has to prove it . Not you. Obviously you are going to rebut that with evidence . Presumption of innocence by law is with you. Regardless of the perception . Tulsa needs serious reform and training , many of their people act strictly by what a book says even if it’s devoid of any common sense . They often cause the hostility rather than help . It’s a stickener alright if the claim is blatantly lies but , the judge may remember that during the rest of the divorce proceedings . It’s over now , you are free .
have your say