The Minister for Justice and Equality has approved the Garda Station Legal Aid Revised Scheme. The scheme provides for new fees payable to solicitors providing legal aid to criminal suspects, in respect of attendance at questioning. Revision of the scheme follows the decision in DPP v Gormley and White [2014] wherein the Supreme Court interpreted the constitutional right of access to a lawyer as including the presence of a solicitor during interrogation. The Court relied on ECHR jurisprudence in making its decision. The right is also provided for in paragraph 25 of the EU Directive 2013/48 on Access to a Lawyer in Criminal Proceedings.
As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, the DPP issued a direction to the Garda Síochána on 7 May this year, that where a suspect requests it, they have a right to have a solicitor present for questioning. It was not immediately clear whether the Garda Station Legal Advice Scheme would be extended to facilitate this right for suspects with limited means. According to a letter dated 22 July 2014, the Department of Justice and Equality has now revised the scheme after consultations with stakeholders. The new scheme will come into effect from 15 August 2014. The new scheme keeps the consultation rate, but incorporates a new attendance at station rate, which will be payable for time spent in questioning or at intervals waiting at the station. The Scheme and its new rates have retroactive effect for claims made between 7 May and 15 August 2014.
The Legal Aid Board will issue a new claim form and a guidance document outlining the new procedure. The Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society of Ireland is developing guidance for solicitors when attending Garda station interviews. A Code of Practice on Access to a Solicitor by Persons in Garda Custody is currently being finalised and Professional Training will be delivered by the Law Society in autumn and winter.
Click here to read a Department of Justice and Equality letter outlining the new scheme.
Click here to read the decision in DPP v Gormley and White [2014] IESC 17.