2026-05-14

12. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to provide an update on his Department's engagement with the Law Society of Ireland and other stakeholders ahead of the changes to the operation of legal aid at the District Court; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34694/26]

Will the Minister outline his or his Department's engagement with the Law Society of Ireland and other stakeholders in advance of the changes to the legal aid system operating in the District Court? I am told by many there is unease in relation to the possibility of an exodus of those who engage in the system. We want to see it streamlined and efficient and getting the best bang for our buck but we do not want to see backlogged courts and it causing more hassle than it needs to.

I thank Deputy Ó Murchú for his question. I certainly do not believe that there will be an exodus of our criminal law practitioners from the legal aid sphere as a result of the reforms I am introducing. As I said earlier, it is a very competitive sector. There are highly efficient and professional solicitors providing services to persons accused of criminal offences. I believe that will continue. I would not propose the reforms if I thought it would not. I looked at the criminal legal aid scheme and I am fully aware of the importance of the scheme in terms of protecting the right to a fair trial and ensuring individuals accused of serious offences have adequate protection. My proposed reform in the District Court is not intended to reduce the cost to the State in providing criminal legal aid. Instead, it is about improving efficiencies and reducing unnecessary adjournments while still ensuring fair and sustainable remuneration for legal practitioners. As the Deputy knows, it is proposed to replace the current appearance-based sliding scale with a flat fee model for cases in the District Court, regardless of the number of appearances. A set generous fee higher than the fee at present will be payable to solicitors. The new flat fee will be set at a rate that provides for full restoration of the FEMPI cuts in line with the programme for Government commitment. I have to point out that part of the reason for my reform is because of a review conducted by my Department in respect of cases conducted in the District Court. On foot of that review, it was apparent to me that reform was required. It is also apparent that if we pay somebody per appearance, it is going to incentivise additional adjournments. Research was done that established that in cases where there was criminal legal aid, there would be five appearances where there was criminal legal aid and three where there was not.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I understand the argument the Minister is making. It is my understanding there are a considerable number of adjournments on the basis of the gardaí and the State itself. The fear is that we will have a number of solicitors who are not willing to engage with this system. We will obviously have those who need representation but beyond that, I am told that in many cases involving legal aid, and when the solicitor is given a sufficient amount of time, due diligence is done and this facilitates, when it makes best sense, guilty pleas or whatever, so we are not necessarily clogging up the courts more than they need to be. The Law Society and others will accept there should be nothing that gives an incentive in relation to solicitors demanding more adjournments on the basis of pay but I am told it generally happens on the basis of the State, whether that is due diligence not being done beforehand, issues in relation to evidence, etc. I ask the Minister about his engagement with the Law Society and the other stakeholders who need this to work.

There are obviously a variety of reasons for adjournments of a criminal trial in the District Court. What is concerning me is the fact that if we have short adjournments, they have a very negative impact on the efficiency of the system because cases are listed every two weeks, every three weeks or however long it is on a continuing basis. If we are paying a person per the number of appearances, that is going to incentivise the adjournment. These reforms will have a positive impact because when it comes to applications for adjournments, practitioners will take into account whether or not they are going to be ready for the hearing or the next stage of the trial at the adjourned date proposed. People will be much more careful about agreeing to an adjourned date in circumstances where they do not think they will be ready on that date. There is a benefit to it. In terms of engagement, I have had very good engagement with the Bar Council and the Law Society. I have received submissions from them and offered to meet them again. I will happily meet them again.

I welcome that the Minister will meet them again, particularly as the Law Society and many of its members, some of whom have contacted me, have stated they are incredibly worried about this. I agree with the Minister that we all want to see our courts system work as efficiently as possible. We have all seen that for too long justice has been denied. We have all seen cases which have taken an extraordinary length of time to make their way through the District and Circuit Courts. However, in a previous answer, the Minister said his Department reviewed more than 350,000 District Court cases, which took place between 2022 and 2023. I would like to know the detail and how that was done because that would seem like a significant amount of work to do. I call on the Minister to meet again with the Law Society. We all want a system that works. We do not want to see courts more backlogged than they are.

That is correct. There was a detailed review carried out by my Department and what it established was that there were a number of structural issues which needed to be addressed: first, payment per appearance incentives adjournments; second, multiple certificates were granted for related cases which will increase costs and complexity; third, multiple solicitors assigned in the same firm for related charges; and, fourth, a highly-complex payment processing system creating a significant administrative burden. The review found that cases with criminal legal aid take an average of 313 calendar days to complete compared to 133 days for cases without. The weighted average appearances for cases with criminal legal aid is five, while the weighted average appearances for cases without criminal legal aid is just three. While cases with criminal legal aid take significantly longer than those without, the outcomes are similar. This is a system that needs to be reformed.