The Gazette 1967/71

I have no complaint to make except that I feel that counsel's fees should be included in the costs paid to the solicitor as is usual, rather than to have a separate pay order issued to counsel for his fees. You will note that my own profit cost claim amounted to the sum of £37-14-6, and the pay order I have received from the Department of Justice is in the sum of £36-12-9, a difference of £1-1-0. This is a small item and I don't propose to quarrel with it. While I don't suppose that one can argue from one particular case to a general rule, this case appears to establish or tends to establish the pro position that whereas a solicitor out of his own pocket pays the travelling and subsistence expenses of a witness, that he is entitled to be refunded the reasonable amount of these expenses, even though they exceed the amount that might be strictly payable on foot of the regulations, where the witness is limited to travelling by the cheapest form of transport. In this case, of course, Mr. Justice Kenny made the strongest possible recom mendation that the full amount of the witness's expenses—she being a cripple—should be paid. The second and more important point from the point of view of solicitors is that I have been paid for travelling to Mountjoy Jail for a consultation with the accused. I was not paid these travelling and subsistence expenses in a previous legal aid case where I travelled to Mountjoy Jail. As I say you cannot argue from the particular to the general, but this case does appear to estab lish that the Department of Justice is prepared to pay the expenses of a solicitor attending in Dublin or presumably elsewhere, for the purpose of taking instructions from an accused in respect of his defence. This appears, to my mind, to accord with commonsense, because I cannot apprehend for one moment that any solicitor could properly brief counsel in a criminal case without first inter viewing the accused, and taking detailed instruc tions in regard to trie book of evidence served in the case.

will refer to our own statutes and rules of courv and to the decisions of the Superior Courts, and, where necessary, Wylie and the White Book will be consulted. However, in Part II of the text book, which deals with non-contentions matters, Irish lawyers who have little knowledge of conveyancing prac tice, and who wish to learn the elements of this evasive subject, will find an interesting and instruc tive chapter relating to procedure in the buying and selling of unregistered freehold and leasehold land. GERARD A. LEE The Secretary, Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. Dear Sir—I refer to mine of May 22 last and yours of 3 June 1970. I enclose you herewith an incomplete copy of the Form L.A.I which I submitted to the Registrar of the Central Criminal Court. The reason why trie copy is incomplete is that the Registrar sent it direct to the Department of Justice instead of returning it to me for lodgment with the Depart ment. You will be glad to know that I have today received from the Department of Justice three cheques, one for £17-15-0 in favour of the witness. You will note that in fact I claimed the sum of £18-15-0 being £15-15-0 hire of hack ney, and £3 subsistence expenses which I in fact paid. I don't propose to raise any objection in this matter, I suppose the Department could argue that £3 subsistence was too high for the witness, and I assume that they have reduced the amount by £1. The one objection I have to the fact is that the pay order is made out to the witness instead of to me, but I imagine that I will be able to surmount this difficulty. I have also received a cheque for £21 in favour of counsel, which are the fees I claimed on his behalf. Again I don't propose to object to this except that in actual fact, in accordance with the usual professional practice, I sent counsel a cheque for his fees on 8 May 1970, and presumably even though the banks have been closed since then, he has negotiated or cashed the cheque. In any event CORRESPONDENCE

Yours faithfully,

Edmund S. Doyle, 12 North Main St., Wexford. 20 October 1970.

116