Dead person among 22 names wrongly on criminal legal aid panel

An examination of names on the panel of lawyers eligible for criminal legal aid work disclosed 22 people who should not have been there, the High Court has heard.

The 22 included four recently appointed judges, a deceased person, an unknown person and 14 persons who had been excluded from the Law Library, Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for the Minister for Justice, said.

The administrative errors or oversights were discovered thanks to retired High Court judge Barry White and new procedures had now been put in place, he added.

In relaiton to Mr White's claim he is entitled to be included on the panel, the Minister's position is only those who have subscribed to rules of the Bar Council are eligible for inclusion, the court heard.

Mr White is challenging one of those rules which prevents retired judges resuming practice in a court equal to or lower than the one they presided over.

Applicaiton of the rule to Mr White, who was a sucessful criminal defence lawyer prior to his appointment as a judge in 2002, would mean he would be confined to practising in the Court of Apepal and the Supreme Court.

‘Economic necessity’

Mr White (71) retired in 2014 after 12 years as a High Court. He later wrote to the Bar Council, the representative body of barristers in Ireland, stating he wished to resume practice as a barrister due to "economic necessity".

He held discussions with the Bar Council and Minister for Justice on his application for a waiver of the disputed rule but failed to get a waiver.

In his legal proceedings, he argues his rights to work and earn a livelihood have been breached, the Bar Council has no jurisdiction to impose conditions on judges returning to practice and the Minister has no power to enforce such restrictions.

Mr White, the court heard, had offered a number of undertakings to address certain concerns of the Bar Council, including not to act in cases which he had presided over or involving challenges to his own judgments, and not to use any confidential information obtained as a judge.

On the third day of the case, Paul Sreenan SC, for the Bar Council, said it had been argued a judge of the criminal court is in a different situation but “we are talking about perception”.

The right to a livelihood is a “narrow right” and does not mean a person could have access to property of a third party like the Law Library, he said

Mr White had chosen voluntarily to become a judge, he said. Mr White had a livedihood as a barrister and a judge and then a pension. “Nothing has been done to render that livelihood inadequate,” counsel said.

Michael Collins SC, also for the Bar Council, said Mr White knew the code of conduct and knew it entailed certain consequences. “There is no such thing as a constitutional right to be a member of the Law Library,” he said.

The case continues on Friday before Mr Justice Max Barrett.