Sir, – The decision by Judge Melanie Greally to assign free legal aid to Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy raises a number of questions.
Mr Murphy argued that he was entitled to aid as he has elected to take a salary equivalent to the average industrial wage. From media reports he has an arrangement with his party that the balance of his Dáil salary is applied to his political activities.
Who employs Mr Murphy? Who actually pays him? Is it the State or is it his party?
Is income tax chargeable on the totality of his salary? If not, what arrangement has the State made that allows Mr Murphy’s salary be paid to a third party that in turn employs him? If such an arrangement exists, who authorised it and how is accountability determined?
The deputy is a representative of all of his constituents, not just his party.
If income tax has not been paid on all of it by Mr Murphy, Judge Greally was correct in her decision to grant aid. On the other hand, the Revenue Commissioners need to explain how Mr Murphy can determine how the untaxed element can be used.
If income tax was paid, Judge Greally should explain how Mr Murphy is worthy of such assistance, most likely at the expense of some less fortunate accused.
The electorate is entitled to transparency with respect to the taxation treatment of the public salary.
Perhaps Fintan O’Toole is correct, it is time for tax returns to be published. The paymaster taxpayer is entitled to clarity on this matter. – Yours, etc,
DFM DUFFY
Cabinteely,
Dublin 18.
Sir,– Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy has been granted free legal aid although he is in receipt of a salary of €87,258, (before expenses).
His claim is based on the fact that he donates a sizeable proportion of his salary to political campaigns, some of which robustly encourage citizens to break the law of the land.
This means that the State, through the taxpayer and sanctioned by the courts, is indirectly supporting campaigns which encourage the breaking of its own laws. “The responsibility for this lies with the State,” says Mr Murphy. Indeed it does.
I am reminded of a 1950s illustration of “chutzpah”, a Yiddish word meaning cheek or audacity: a person convicted of the murder of his parents makes a claim for leniency on the grounds that he is an orphan. In that instance, I believe, the judge did not allow the claim.
Judge Greally was more compassionate. Great little country.
– Yours, etc,
MICHAEL LALLY,
Ballinasloe,
Co Galway.