My colleague Tony Collier and I have submitted a written statement. I am going to speak to it and will make a few additional comments.
June 2026 marked the 17th month of Deputy Jim O'Callaghan being in post as the Minister for justice. By the time he had reached his 18th month, virtually all criminal defence solicitors in the country had withdrawn their services and the criminal justice system was largely at a standstill. Prior to this, the system was functioning, albeit in a largely dysfunctional way. We saw insufficient numbers of judges, prison overcrowding, a lack of viable alternatives to prison or other community-based programmes and an underfunded and underdeveloped probation service, as well as an underfunded juvenile diversion programme. Within this, criminal defence solicitors were still working for rates of pay that have remained at 2014 levels - 30% below the rate at which they had been paid before the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, national programme of austerity.
It has to be said that successive Governments have failed to invest properly in the justice system. This is despite the fact that there are nearly twice as many public courthouses in the country as public hospitals. The total number of individual courthouses in Ireland, according to the Courts Service website, is 127. There are 67 public hospitals. Yet, the total spend on the justice system every year is criminally low. To put that in context, the amount spent each year on the Courts Service and the Judiciary combined would not run the national public health service for one week. It is in that context that the Minister for justice unilaterally imposed his new flat-fee model without ever seeking any real input from the people he expected in it and criticising them as he did so in order to justify the changes.
The Minister and the Department have rejected suggestions from solicitors and the Law Society as an institution to agree to small modifications to the new system that would address more complex and long-running cases, which occur all too frequently. This has been dismissed as incompatible with the reforms introduced by the Minister, yet a flat-fee model with allowances for complex cases or additional pieces of work is precisely the model operated by the two jurisdictions closest to our own.
In England and Wales, the system of payment for criminal legal aid cases starts with a low flat fee for basic cases, but as they become more complicated, additional payments are allowed for each job of work required. A similar structure exists in the North. There is a small additional fee for a bail application, for example, and an hourly rate for reviewing case evidence or preparing a defence. If the prosecution is complex or involves a more serious type of offence, this is recognised in the payment system, and an allowance is made. Nowhere is it evident that the Minister or his Department has put anything like this kind of thought or consideration into his flat-fee model.
The profession has pointed out to the Minister repeatedly that certain classes of cases are inherently more difficult and more complex than others. Cases involving juveniles, for example, have been put forward time and again, but this has been ignored despite widespread recognition of the sensitive and specialised nature of the work. In 2024, the UK's criminal legal aid independent review, CLAIR, in its report relating to children's court work, stated that child defendants are some of the most vulnerable and benefit from tailored specialist support. In addition, it stated that youth court work requires an understanding of the distinct youth justice system, process and sentencing options. It stated that building up trust and understanding with a child can be challenging and requires extra time and effort to be given. The report highlighted that current youth court fee levels may lead to inexperienced lawyers taking on these cases who may only have a short time to meet with a child, to engage them, understand their case and win their trust, and thus represent their interests effectively. CLAIR therefore recommended that criminal legal aid fees payable in the youth court be increased to reflect the importance of the work and seriousness of the young defendant's situation. This is precisely the same as what the Law Society, the Bar Council and criminal defence practitioners have been telling the Minister for months. His response was that he would keep data under review and think about it.
A fixed fee for each person, as distinct from each case, does not allow for the investment of time and resources necessary to provide a service of any quality by a dedicated and experienced solicitor. The neighbouring jurisdictions have had their own experiences with industrial disputes and withdrawal of services, but these have been resolved eventually through dialogue and consultation. A recent document on legal aid reform in Northern Ireland was published by the justice Minister, Naomi Long. In the introduction, she commented as follows:
The key objective of these proposals is securing access to justice for victims, witnesses, and defendants. The proposals aim to support the long-term viability of the legal professions. There must be fair payment. There must also be a proactive approach to succession planning and diversity must be promoted and supported.
I would like to thank the professions for their co-operation with the review and recognise the professionalism of the Solicitors Criminal Bar Association who have engaged constructively to find a way forward through the process while continuing to serve their clients and the system. The introduction of these proposals comes after significant investment by the Department to preserve evidence-based fair levels of legal aid remuneration.
It has to be said, regrettably, that the tone and content of these remarks are very different from the atmosphere created by our Minister for justice. His approach has led to hostility and resentment from the solicitors profession. It did not have to be that way. A considered approach with real engagement and discussion could have avoided the need for any of the disruption we have seen. The profession looks forward to the Minister behaving in that way.
