{"id":529849,"date":"2026-07-02T18:45:07","date_gmt":"2026-07-02T18:45:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/529849\/"},"modified":"2026-07-02T18:45:07","modified_gmt":"2026-07-02T18:45:07","slug":"solicitor-launches-high-court-challenge-to-new-criminal-legal-aid-model-claiming-it-has-upended-system-the-irish-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/529849\/","title":{"rendered":"Solicitor launches High Court challenge to new criminal legal aid model, claiming it has \u2018upended\u2019 system \u2013 The Irish Times"},"content":{"rendered":"

A solicitor has launched a High Court<\/a> challenge to a controversial new criminal legal aid payment model for the District Court<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The new model, which came into effect this week, has led to a severe backlash from solicitors and impacted work in the criminal justice system.<\/p>\n

John Quinn, a lawyer at John M Quinn & Co Solicitors, is seeking an order quashing the statutory instrument underpinning the new regulations. He is suing the office of the Minister for Justice, with the Law Society<\/a> of Ireland a notice party to the action. <\/p>\n

Under the new payment model solicitors will receive a flat one-off legal aid fee of \u20ac520 irrespective of how many appearances they make to represent a client in District Court cases.<\/p>\n

[\u00a0\u2018This is an emergency\u2019: Civil legal aid in similar funding crisis to criminal side, report findsOpens in new window<\/a>\u00a0]<\/p>\n

The previous criminal legal aid payments system was based on the number of appearances by a solicitor in court in a case. <\/p>\n

On Thursday, Judge Anthony Barr gave permission to Feich\u00edn McDonagh, counsel for Quinn, to pursue a judicial review challenge to the regulations. The case came before the judge on an ex parte basis, with only one side represented in court.<\/p>\n

McDonagh, appearing with barrister Karl Monahan, submitted that the new regulations had \u201cupended\u201d the system of criminal legal aid, bringing dramatic and far-reaching changes affecting the vast majority of accused people in the criminal justice system and solicitors. <\/p>\n

The judge said the case was a matter of considerable public interest, relevant to solicitors and the operation of the criminal justice system. Therefore, the judge said, it was an issue that needed to be determined as soon as possible. <\/p>\n

In his court documents, Quinn, who works primarily in the criminal justice system, said the vast majority of his clients are of insufficient means to pay for their own legal representation. <\/p>\n

He said his constitutionally protected right to earn a living is \u201cdependent\u201d on the legal aid scheme. <\/p>\n

He submits that the new regulations are in breach of his right to earn a living, as they provide for a flat, one-off fee \u201cto cover multiple, potentially unrelated, alleged offences, irrespective of the number of such alleged offence, and irrespective of the number of court appearance required in respect of the proceedings in question\u201d. <\/p>\n

The regulations also breach his right to earn a living because they provide for payment only when a final order is made in a given case, he submits. This deprives him of prompt payment for his work, and may \u2013 in certain circumstances \u2013 result in him receiving no remuneration for his work, he claims. <\/p>\n

He submits the regulations are \u201carbitrary, capricious, and unjust\u201d.<\/p>\n

Quinn also claims that the regulations are incompatible with the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962, which provides for the assignment of a legal aid certificate in respect of a single offence, and not for the assignment of a legal aid certificate in respect of multiple offences. <\/p>\n

Quinn is seeking an interim stay on the regulations coming into effect. <\/p>\n

The case will return on Tuesday.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A solicitor has launched a High Court challenge to a controversial new criminal legal aid payment model for…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":529850,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[5721,42,73,19394,43,40,38,41,39],"class_list":["post-529849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headlines","tag-district-court","tag-headlines","tag-high-court","tag-law-society","tag-news","tag-top-news","tag-top-stories","tag-topnews","tag-topstories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529849","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=529849"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529849\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/529850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=529849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=529849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=529849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}