THE MINISTER for Justice has said he would have preferred if a 10 per cent cut imposed on fees to criminal defence practitioners last month was also imposed by the Director of Public Prosecutions on fees to prosecution practitioners.
Alan Shatter asked James Hamilton to introduce the 10 per cent cut, but the DPP declined.
The break with parity of payment between defence practitioners working in the criminal free legal aid system and those working in the office of the DPP was “unfortunate”, a statement from the Minister’s office said yesterday.
The 10 per cent cut was introduced at District Court level on July 13th for defence practitioners only. It was also applied to appeals to the Circuit Court, fees for visits to prisons, and some other schemes, as well as fees to defence expert witnesses and to those providing interpretation.
The Minister could not directly apply the cut to prosecution practitioners as they are funded through the Office of the DPP, the budget of which is separate and protected by law.
The Minister also plans to extend the cut to defence fees at the Circuit and higher courts through regulations currently being drafted.
Parity of payment between defence practitioners working in the free legal aid system and prosecution practitioners was established in 1976. Criminal law practitioners have raised concerns about the loss of parity, saying it could result in the most experienced practitioners gravitating towards the better-paid prosecution roles.
Practitioners had already taken two cuts, of 10.5 per cent in 2009 and 8 per cent last year, but, despite this, spending on criminal legal aid decreased by only 6 per cent in 2010. The National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 included a commitment to reduce expenditure on criminal legal aid to save €5 million in 2011 and €10 million in a full year.
In a statement, the Minister said given that most of the year had now gone by, it was “unlikely” the €5 million target would be met.
“The break with parity is an unfortunate consequence of the effort to meet the Government’s obligations under the National Recovery Plan and public expenditure targets,” the statement said.
“The Minister would prefer if there was parity between the fees payable to prosecution and defending practitioners, however the matter of fees payable to prosecution practitioners is a matter for the DPP.”
It was for the DPP to determine, based on his funding, whether there was a need for a similar fee reduction for prosecution practitioners.
It also said a taskforce set up to identify any changes necessary to achieve further cost reductions was due to report by October.
Asked why the DPP had declined to implement the 10 per cent cut requested by Mr Shatter, Mr Hamilton’s office said it had no comment. But it did say it was “the norm” for prosecution to be represented by one counsel only, except in the most serious cases, whereas it was “very common” for a legally-aided defence to have two counsel.
As “background information”, the office added: “While the fees the office pays to prosecution counsel are considerably below the market rate, in response to the budgetary situation, a series of measures have been implemented to very significantly reduce the rates of payments to barristers.”
