The Gazette 1985

GAZETTE

JULY/AUGUST

198

Correspondence

consuming than court proceedings. It is, therefore, illogical to suggest that a drop in the number of cases which end in court proceedings should automatically reduce average cost per case. There is no doubt that in some cases a delay or avoidance of proceedings has precisely the opposite effect. As to your suggestion that the cost of the present Scheme is "expensive", I note that you have produced no supporting evidence. One of the ways of making an assessment on this is to make a comparison with cost figures in another Legal Aid Scheme. Comparisons are often made with corresponding English Schemes though, in the case of legal aid, it is not easy to make direct comparisons because of the fact that there are, in effect, two separate Schemes in England. According to the Report published by the English Law Society on the Legal Aid Scheme for the financial year 1982/83, the average bill paid under the "Green Form" Scheme was £43 Stg. (advice only) and £141 Stg. (representation in the Magistrates Court). Under the Legal Aid Scheme proper, the average bill paid amounted to £595 Stg. These are bills paid in respect of the provision of services and do not take any account of the cost of administration (including means testing) which, in the same year, amounted to approximately £17 million Stg. The foregoing figures certainly do not suggest that the cost of our Scheme can be described as "excessive". They also bear out my original point that there is no proof that a private practitioner Scheme is less expensive than the type of Scheme we have Editorial Note: The inclusion of persons depending on social welfare benefits announced in 1983 is undoubtedly welcome. However, as the Board itself says, "There is an unsatis- factory side to it in that it discriminates against people who are in employment or derive their income from other sources". As to the costs question the Editorial Board is happy to leave the question as to whether the scheme is excessively expensive nor not to its reader's judgement. • BOOK REVIEWS - (continued from page 177) literal interpretation of Article 34.3.1. The author has written a fluent and lively exposition on aspects of constitutional law. However, as stated earlier, the book is limited in its scope. A few cavils. Page 187 appears to be continued on page 189 and 188 on 190 — a printer's slip. There is also an unfortunate slip of the pen when on page 202 the author relying on The People (Attorney General) -v- Conmey [1975] IR 341 writes about the "unconstitutionality" of the Court of Criminal Appeal being upheld. This book will be of particular benefit to persons studying political science. It will also be of benefit to persons interested in constitutional law. • Eamonn G. Hall 185 in this country. Yours sincerely, Pearse Rayel, Chief Executive, Legal Aid Board, 47 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2.

The Editor, Law Society Gazette, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.

May 1985

Dear Sir, When publishing my letter about the Civil Legal Aid Scheme in the January/February issue of the Gazette, you decided to add two further comments to the effect that:— (1) the Pringle Committee's recommendation that the medical card should be accepted as a passport to Civil Legal Aid was not implemented; and (2) the average cost per case handled under the Legal Aid Scheme is "excessive" and has increased between the years 1981 and 1982 when, according to your figures, it stood at £229. As to your first point, I can only assume that you are unaware that since May 1983 there has been in existence an equally extensive "passport" system under which persons depending on social welfare benefits or allowances — apart from pay-related benefit — are entitled to legal aid on payment of a maximum income contribution of £15. This has eliminated the need for detailed assessments in a very high proportion of cases dealt with by the Board. A "passport" system is, of course, relevant only in the case of persons on low incomes. It is necessary, in the case of those on higher incomes, to have a more detailed means assessment. The Pringle Committee recognised this and they recommended a means test for this purpose which was very closely followed in the present Scheme. It is untrue to suggest that there is "a great deal of enquiry into means". In the vast majority of cases the statement of means provided by the applicant is accepted without further enquiry. As regards your second comment, the first point I would like to make is that over 74% of cases handled by the Board are family law cases which are time-consuming and expensive to handle. The fact that a family law case does not result in court proceedings may have little bearing on the cost involved because negotiations towards a settlement can often be even more time-

DOCUMENT EXAMINATION LEGAL AID CASES UNDERTAKEN

M. Ansell, M.A., 98 The Broadway, Heme Bay, Kent CT6 8EY, England. Tel. (02273) 67929 (24 hours)