It is no secret that Jim O’Callaghan is a politician in a hurry. In his less than two years in Cabinet, the Minister for Justice has rarely been out of the headlines, leading a sharp pivot on immigration policy, pushing through sweeping asylum legislation and seeking army help to clear last spring’s fuel blockades. All of this, it is widely assumed, is a prelude to a challenge for the leadership of Fianna Fáil when Micheál Martin eventually steps down.
But excessive haste can be hazardous to political ambition. Since July, O’Callaghan has been embroiled in a bitter dispute with defence solicitors over a new €520 flat fee for District Court legal aid cases.
This autumn, solicitors extended their action, withdrawing from almost all criminal work. But the Minister has largely remained obdurate, although he finally agreed last week to talks with the Law Society, for what he called a “short, focused” engagement.
Tough talk of this sort has its political uses. And there was clearly a problem with how fees were being claimed, given that District Court legal aid costs more than doubled in a decade.
READ MORE
Meanwhile, Dublin solicitor John Quinn was challenging the regulations in the High Court as incompatible with the 1962 legal aid legislation.
Tuesday’s decision by Judge Mary Rose Gearty is a severe blow to O’Callaghan. She found that parts of the scheme went beyond his powers, describing aspects of it as “grossly unfair” and “demonstrably illogical”. She accepted that a single fee was lawful in principle, but not the way charges were grouped or payment withheld until a final order.
The Minister, in a guarded response, said he was considering the ruling and that some elements had already been changed or were under discussion. The Law Society, which backed Quinn’s case, hailed the judgment as confirmation that reforms must follow due process, while promising continued cooperation with the Department of Justice.
Whether the department appeals remains to be seen. With final orders deferred, the judge has left room for a negotiated settlement, which both sides should take.
But it is not a good look for O’Callaghan, who, in the judge’s opinion, overreached his authority.
Nonetheless, it would be a serious error for O’Callaghan to back away entirely from a plan that set out to address an obvious problem. The principle of a flat fee survives, and it is needed to end a system that rewarded drawn-out cases at the State’s expense. If even that cannot be delivered cleanly, what hope is there of tackling the real scandal, of legal recourse available only to the very rich or the very poor, and barriers to entry that entrench privilege and deny litigants choice?
