Rate-Your-Solicitor.com Forum

Bog Hotel owner in custody: Donegal Democrat: Published Date: 15 July 2010  By Staff reporter Matt Britton

http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/donegalne … 6420295.jp date accessed Wednesday 21st July 2010.

The owner of the controversial Bog Hotel outside Frosses, Patsy Brogan was arrested at his home in the early hours of Tuesday morning as part of an assault probe and is currently in custody.

The arrest happened just a day after Brogan, (74)  admitted that his August wedding to his Polish girlfriend, Daria Weiske (30), who shares his remote home, was most likely “off” due to a dispute with a prominent UK glossy magazine.

An eye witness to the early morning activities told this newspaper that he noticed a lot of activity around 7am Tuesday morning when a number of black cars with Dublin registrations and an official garda van arrived on the scene.

“Whatever was happening, it seemed to be thorough operation which lasted quite some time with investigating officers searching everywhere.

“I believe that laptops and mobile phones were seized and I saw the owner Patsy Brogan being taken away in a car.”

“It was like a funeral cavalcade going down the bog lane.” he said.

Daria Weiske was in their home when the gardaí searched it but said she was unconnected to the garda enquiries. She said that her mobile phone and laptop were taken by the investigating officers.

She added after the raid: “Patsy is not here at the moment because the gardaí took him away from me. It should not have happened because Patsy has done nothing wrong.”

The Garda Press Office confirmed to this newspaper yesterday afternoon that Mr Brogan is being held in custody.

PS. The above article and the following article, perhaps make for interesting reading:-

Dorrian to be best man at ‘Bog Hotel’ wedding Donegal News Friday March 12th 2010 NEWS page 33.

WELL, known solicitor Paudge  Dorrian is to be best man at the wedding of ‘Bog Hotel’ owner Patsy Brogan.

Mr. Brogan announced plans to marry his 29-year-old Polish barmaid Daria Weiske after he was acquitted in court of running an unlicensed bar.

His solicitor Paudge Dorrian persuaded Donegal District Court last Wednesday that there was nothing illegal about 72-year-ol Patsy Brogan’s 60sq m garden-shed bar in a bog in the Bluestack Mountains in Donegal.

“Patsy asked me as soon as the judge gave his verdict if I would be best man at his wedding. Those were his first words. I didn’t get a chance to consider at the time because I was involved in the next case. But if he’s going to marry, why not be his best man? I’ve been effectively that as his solicitor in the Bog Hotel case,” Mr. Dorrian said.

Mr. Brogan said they might marry in Donegal, instead of Poland, because a hotelier told him he can have it for free.

The hotelier told him he was ‘the best thing to happen to Donegal publicity-wise for a long time’.

Mr. Brogan was due to appear to RTE’s Podge and Rodge show last year but because of his pending court case, he was advised against it.

Judge Kevin Kilraine turned down a planning bid by Donegal County Council to shut the bar because there was no evidence that Mr. Brogan charged for drink in it. He ruled that the pensioner was entitled to have a private bar for family.

PS. The statements:-

[WELL, known solicitor Paudge  Dorrian is to be best man at the wedding of ‘Bog Hotel’ owner Patsy Brogan.

Mr. Brogan announced plans to marry his 29-year-old Polish barmaid Daria Weiske after he was acquitted in court of running an unlicensed bar.

His solicitor Paudge Dorrian persuaded Donegal District Court last Wednesday that there was nothing illegal about 72-year-old Patsy Brogan’s 60sq m garden-shed bar in a bog in the Bluestack Mountains in Donegal.]

[Mr. Brogan said they might marry in Donegal, instead of Poland, because a hotelier told him he can have it for free.

The hotelier told him he was ‘the best thing to happen to Donegal publicity-wise for a long time’.

Mr. Brogan was due to appear to RTE’s Podge and Rodge show last year but because of his pending court case, he was advised against it.]

[Judge Kevin Kilraine turned down a planning bid by Donegal County Council to shut the bar because there was no evidence that Mr. Brogan charged for drink in it. He ruled that the pensioner was entitled to have a private bar for family.]

Would VLPS members, perhaps agree that ‘Patsy Brogan’s 60sq m garden-shed bar in a bog in the Bluestack Mountains in Donegal’ would appear to be ‘Defacto A Bar’ and equivalent to ‘if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck’?

Are VLPS members, perhaps puzzled as to the contradiction ‘Mr. Brogan said they might marry in Donegal, instead of Poland, because a hotelier told him he can have it for free’ and not in the ‘Bog Hotel’ ‘Patsy Brogan’s 60sq m garden-shed bar in a bog in the Bluestack Mountains in Donegal’?

PS Given the requirements as stated below:-

[Intoxicating Liquor (General) Act, 1924

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1924/en/ … .html#sec7 date accessed Sunday 21st March 2010.

PART II.
LICENSING.
Prohibition of sale of intoxicating liquors without licence.

7.—(1) From and after the passing of this Act no person shall sell, expose for sale, or keep for sale, by retail, any intoxicating liquor without being duly licensed so to sell the same, or at any place where he is not authorised by his licence to sell the same.

(2) Every person who shall sell, expose for sale, or keep for sale, by retail any intoxicating liquor without being duly licensed so to sell such intoxicating liquor, and every person who shall sell, expose for sale, or keep for sale, by retail any intoxicating liquor at any place where he is not authorised by his licence so to sell the same, shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds, or in default of payment of such penalty to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

(3) In addition to any other penalty imposed by this section, any person convicted of a second or any subsequent offence under this section or having been convicted before the passing of this Act of an offence under section 3 of the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1854, or section 3 of the Licensing Act, 1872, is convicted of an offence under this section shall, if he be the holder of a licence of any description for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, forfeit such licence.

(4) In the case of a conviction for any offence under this section, the court may, if it thinks expedient so to do, declare all intoxicating liquor found in the possession of the person so convicted, and the vessels containing such liquor, to be forfeited.

(5) No penalty shall be incurred under this section by the heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns of any licensed person who dies before the expiration of his licence, or by the trustee of any licensed person who is adjudged a bankrupt or whose affairs are liquidated by arrangement before the expiration of his licence, in respect of the sale or exposure for sale or keeping for sale of any intoxicating liquor, provided such sale or exposure for sale or keeping for sale be made on the premises specified in such licence, and takes place prior to the sitting of the Justice of the District Court in the court area in which such premises are situate next after the expiration of fourteen days from the death of the said person or the appointment of a trustee in the case of his bankruptcy, or the liquidation of his affairs by arrangement, as the case may be.

Are VLPS members sceptical that the ‘Bog Hotel’ is completely free and Mr. Brogan is the Donegal Santa Claus and is not in breach of ‘7.—(1) From and after the passing of this Act no person shall sell, expose for sale, or keep for sale, by retail, any intoxicating liquor without being duly licensed so to sell the same, or at any place where he is not authorised by his licence to sell the same.’?
Are VLPS members also asking, “Where is the money coming from that Mr. Brogan can provide alcohol free to the public in his ‘Bog Hotel’’?

Would VLPS members, further agree that whilst RTE has Podge & Rodge in Donegal we have ‘Paudge & Friends’  ‘tangled web of deceit’ in the Administration of  Law & Justice, in keeping with the quotation below? J.F.

[O what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive.
—Sir Walter Scott, 1808]
http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/q … 100quotes/ date accessed Sunday 21st March 2010.

Would VLPS members, agree it will be interesting if Solicitor Paudge Dorrain, is still ‘best man’ following the arrest of  Patsy Brogan? J.F.

Solicitors 'entitled' to full hearing MARY CAROLAN Irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 19:30

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre … ing65.html date accessed Saturday 24th July 2010.

Three solicitors being pursued by Anglo Irish Bank for more than €64 million arising from loans of €165 million to a Limerick property group have made out an arguable defence to the bank’s claim entitling them to a full hearing, a High Court judge has ruled.

Anglo had argued the three had no defence to its application for summary judgment orders for some €21.4 million each over loans made to companies and partnerships linked to the Fordmount property group.

The solicitors argued they had a defence on grounds including assurances were given by Anglo officials to the Fordmount group managing director Michael Daly their guarantees over certain loans would never be relied upon. They also claimed Anglo advanced loans to the group when it had concerns about how the affairs of the partnerships were being conducted by Mr Daly.

Mr Daly, who is being separately sued by Anglo for €84 million, has claimed he was regarded as a favoured developer by Anglo and was told by it he had access to loan funds of more than €650 million.

Anglo’s proceedings against Mr Daly will be heard early next year after Mr Justice Peter Charleton refused the bank summary judgment orders. The judge ruled Mr Daly had made out an arguable defence on grounds including senior Anglo executives told him his guarantees would never be relied upon.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly today gave his reserved judgment on Anglo’s application for the summary judgment orders against Dermot O’Donovan, Michael Sherry and Aidan Frawley, all partners in the Limerick-based firm Dermot G. O’Donovan & Partners.

A fourth partner, Thomas Dalton, previously consented to summary judgment against him in the €21.4 million sum.

Mr Justice Kelly ruled, because it was not “very clear” the three defendants have no case, they were entitled to a full plenary action. His decision was not “a warranty” as to the strength of the solicitors defence, “still less as to their ultimate prospects of success”, he added.

The full action will now be heard early next year in the Commercial Court and Anglo may seek to have it heard in tandem with the proceedings against Mr Daly.

In his judgment, the judge said all three defendants were experienced solicitors familiar with personal guarantees and their consequences. They had all sworn in affidavits they never had any doubt Anglo would not seek to enforce the guarantees.

There was no document or note indicating anyone from Anglo made such representations to them as there could not be since no official from the bank had, he said. The representations were made by Mr Daly who was never an officer or employee of Anglo.

The judge noted Mr Daly had said the guarantees would never be relied upon and were just “a box ticking exercise” for Anglo’s credit committee. The solicitors said they genuinely believed that and appeared to believe Mr Daly had a special status with Anglo. He had told them of being taken on several golfing trips by Anglo including one of “huge cost” involving travel on the Orient Express.

The judge noted Anglo had described the solicitors claims as incredible and said they could not have genuinely believed the guarantees were unenforceable. There were flaws in the defence advanced, he observed.

Were it not for the fact Mr Daly’s case had been sent to plenary hearing, the judge said he would be very inclined to refuse the defendants leave to defend. However, were Mr Daly to succeed there was a risk of an injustice being perceived to have been done to these defendants. Granting judgment now would also be ruinous to their own financial stability and have serious implications for their future professional lives.

In those circumstances, he refused summary judgment on the claims relating to the guarantees.

In also refusing summary judgment over loans to the partnerships, the judge noted Anglo had looked at how funds were provided to the partnerships and companies in the third quarter of 2008 and as a result appointed accountants Cooney Carey in March 2009 to carry out a review. That led to queries to which unsatisfactory answers were made.

Anglo argued it did not become aware of any issue as to fraud or unlawful activity until June 2009 by which time the bulk of the loans had been drawn down. In those circumstances, the defendants claim the bank advanced funds when it knew or suspected the group was the object of a fraud or unlawful activity appeared “incorrect”, he said.

However, the Cooney Carey report had not been provided to the court or the defendants and might have a large part to play in this aspect of the case, he said.

PS. The statements from the above strange court case and the articles below on hearsay perhaps raise some very interesting issues:-

[Three solicitors being pursued by Anglo Irish Bank for more than €64 million arising from loans of €165 million to a Limerick property group have made out an arguable defence to the bank’s claim entitling them to a full hearing, a High Court judge has ruled.

Anglo had argued the three had no defence to its application for summary judgment orders for some €21.4 million each over loans made to companies and partnerships linked to the Fordmount property group.

The solicitors argued they had a defence on grounds including assurances were given by Anglo officials to the Fordmount group managing director Michael Daly their guarantees over certain loans would never be relied upon. They also claimed Anglo advanced loans to the group when it had concerns about how the affairs of the partnerships were being conducted by Mr Daly.

Mr Daly, who is being separately sued by Anglo for €84 million, has claimed he was regarded as a favoured developer by Anglo and was told by it he had access to loan funds of more than €650 million.

Anglo’s proceedings against Mr Daly will be heard early next year after Mr Justice Peter Charleton refused the bank summary judgment orders. The judge ruled Mr Daly had made out an arguable defence on grounds including senior Anglo executives told him his guarantees would never be relied upon.]

Would VLPS members agree, ‘The judge ruled Mr Daly had made out an arguable defence on grounds including senior Anglo executives told him his guarantees would never be relied upon.’ AND ‘Hearsay Definition:- ‘Unverified information heard or received from another; rumour. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.’

Can it be strongly argued that it appears Mr. Justice Peter Charleton is accepting hearsay namely ‘Unverified information heard or received from another; rumour’ with‘no adequate basis for determining whether the out-of-court statement is true.’?

Would VLPS members agree, ‘The solicitors argued they had a defence on grounds including assurances were given by Anglo officials to the Fordmount group managing director Michael Daly their guarantees over certain loans would never be relied upon.’

Can it again be strongly argued that these 3 solicitors by accepting ‘assurances’ were again accepting hearsay rather than factual proof in writing from Anglo Officials?

Would VLPS perhaps fully agree ‘Three solicitors being pursued by Anglo Irish Bank for more than €64 million arising from loans of €165 million to a Limerick property group..’ Could this figure of €64 million again be taken as proof that ‘A Lawyer With A Briefcase Can Steal More Money Than A Thousand Men With Guns’?

‘A Lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns’ Don-Vito-Corleone. The Godfather cited in Serial Liars accessed at the we blink below:-

http://www.lsa.net.au/pdf/Serial-Liars_Ebook.pdf date accessed Wednesday 7th July 2010.

[Hearsay Definition:

http://www.answers.com/topic/hearsay date accessed Saturday 24th July 2010.

1.Unverified information heard or received from another; rumour.
2.Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Law Dictionary:  Hearsay Rule

http://www.answers.com/topic/hearsay-rule date accessed Saturday 24th July 2010.

A rule that declares not admissible as evidence any statement other than that by a witness while testifying at the hearing and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated.
Uniform Rule of Evidence 63.

The reason for the hearsay rule is that the credibility of the witness is the key ingredient in weighing the truth of his statement.

So when that statement is made out of court, without benefit of cross-examination and without the witness's demeanour being subject to assessment by the trier of fact (judge or jury), there is generally no adequate basis for determining whether the out-of-court statement is true. 6 Wigmore, Evidence §1766 (1985).

The statement may be oral or written and includes non-verbal conduct intended as a substitute for words.

If, for example, a witness's statement as to what he heard another person say is elicited to prove the truth of what that other person said, it is hearsay; if however, it is elicited to merely show that the words were spoken, it is not hearsay.

The witness's answer will be admissible only to show that the other person spoke certain words and not to show the truth of what the other person said.

There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule of exclusion based on a combination of trustworthiness and necessity.

Thus, official written statements, such as police reports, where the declarant's statements are based on firsthand knowledge and where the officer is under an official duty to make the report (and hence has no motive to falsify) are admissible under the BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION. See, e.g., Uniform Rule 63(13).

Another common exception is made for DYING DECLARATIONS, see, e.g., Uniform Rule 63(5).

Under this rule a statement made by a person with knowledge or hopeless expectation of his impending death is admissible through another who overheard that statement where the declarant is unavailable because he died.

Originally it was strongly believed that a dying person would tell the truth; thus W's testimony as to what the dying declarant said became admissible both on the grounds of trustworthiness and necessity.

Today, with more scepticism about the effect of religiosity on truth-telling, necessity remains as a major factor in determining admissibility.

The question of W's credibility is subject to demeanour examination and cross-examination for bias, memory, etc.

Some jurisdictions permit any admission by a party to be offered by his adversary in a civil proceeding through any competent witness as another broad exception to the hearsay rule. See Uniform Rule 63(7).

Hearsay exceptions may jeopardize the constitutional guarantee of confrontation and thus criminal exceptions may be more narrow (e.g., compare the "declaration against interest exception" with the "admissions exception." Id. R.R. 63(10) and 63(7)).

The confrontation clause has been held not identical with the general common law hearsay rule, see 399 U.S. 149; and state exceptions have been upheld where they have sufficient trustworthiness to satisfy the confrontation clause interests.

See 400 U.S. 74 (permitting an unusually broad CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION which permits statements made by one conspirator to be admissible against the other conspirators even though the statement was made after the conspirators were in custody-contrary to the generally accepted rule that the exception does not extend to the post-custody stage, see 336 U.S. 440). See also 380 U.S. 400; 390 U.S. 719; 392 U.S. 293. See evidence

Nama challenge features NI loans: BBC News 20 July 2010 Last updated at 16:48.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10701600 date accessed Sunday 25th July 2010.

It has emerged that many of the loans which the property developer Paddy McKillen is trying to prevent being moved in to the Irish Republic's "bad bank" relate to developments in Northern Ireland.

The bad bank, known as the National Assets Management Agency or Nama, was set up by the Irish government to help save the Dublin-based banks which have been crippled by the property crash.

Nama is buying from the banks, at a discount, all property development loans of more than 5m euros.

That should improve the banks' balance sheets and ultimately allow them to start lending more.

Although Nama is thought of as a way of removing "toxic" loans from the banks it is also taking over good or "performing" loans - those which are being repaid and earning money.

Mr McKillen's barrister told the High Court in Dublin on Monday that 80m euros of his loans which Bank of Ireland intends transferring to Nama are performing.

Mr McKillen says it would cause him reputational damage if Nama take over those loans as it would wrongly associate him with other developers who are in a much worse financial position than him.

Apartments

His barrister said a transfer to Nama would have a "drastic and significantly detrimental" impact on his business and property rights.

The legal action is being taken in Mr McKillen's name and 15 of his companies.

Six of those companies are registered in Northern Ireland: Belfast Office Properties, Finbrook Investments, Connis Property Services, Dellway Investments, Formcrest Construction and Abey Developments.

According to Companies House documents the firms are co-owned by Mr McKillen's low-profile business partner, Padraig Drayne who is from Donaghmore in County Tyrone.

Belfast Office Properties, Finbrook and Connis are related companies which developed offices close to Belfast Central Station in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Their developments included Waterfront Plaza which is best known as the local headquarters of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Recently filed accounts show that as of September 2009 the three companies had a joint loan facility from Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank totalling £221m.

Abey Developments built the Custom House Residence apartment development in Belfast and is currently suing a number of people who have failed to complete the purchase of flats agreed at the height of the boom.

It is connected to Dellway and Formcrest, along with a number of other GB registered companies. Together these companies have £29.5m loan facility with Bank of Ireland.

Mr McKillen's challenge to Nama is due to continue in Dublin's Commercial Court on October 12.

PS. The statements:-

[It has emerged that many of the loans which the property developer Paddy McKillen is trying to prevent being moved in to the Irish Republic's "bad bank" relate to developments in Northern Ireland.

The bad bank, known as the National Assets Management Agency or Nama, was set up by the Irish government to help save the Dublin-based banks which have been crippled by the property crash.]

[Mr McKillen's barrister told the High Court in Dublin on Monday that 80m euros of his loans which Bank of Ireland intends transferring to Nama are performing.]

Would VLPS members agree, ‘It has emerged that many of the loans which the property developer Paddy McKillen is trying to prevent being moved in to the Irish Republic's "bad bank" relate to developments in Northern Ireland.’

Could it also be argued that ‘the Irish Republic's "bad bank" appears also to be a not so good bank as far as this developer in Northern Ireland is concerned?

Would VLPS members agree, ‘Mr McKillen's barrister told the High Court in Dublin on Monday that 80m euros of his loans which Bank of Ireland intends transferring to Nama are performing.’

Could it be argued that the ‘High Court in Dublin’ as well as dealing with Mr McKillen's ‘80m euros of his loans’ should also deal again with ‘crooked solicitor’ Michael Lynn’s fraud of atleast 80m euros as briefly detailed below? J.F.

[Lynn case adjournedUpdated: 23-Jul-2010

http://www.algarveresident.com/story.asp?XID=37210 date accessed Sunday 25th July 2010

Five properties owned by fugitive lawyer Michael Lynn were the centre of a repossession case heard in the Irish High Court in Dublin on July 19.


KBC Bank Ireland plc, trading as KBC Homeloans, were seeking to have the unoccupied properties in Carrick-on-Shannon, which had been bought by Michael Lynn and his business partner John Riordan, repossessed in an attempt to recover 2.5 million Euros owed to them.


The case has however been adjourned after an email from John Riordan was received by lawyers detailing new instructions for them to follow on his behalf.


According to Irish broadcasters RTE, lawyers for John Riordan told the court the case was extremely complicated and that their client was currently in Portugal but would be returning to Ireland and forwarding his detailed instructions on the case. The case is set to continue again on October 18.


After being struck off in 2008, Michael Lynn was ordered to pay two million Euros in fines to the law society.


The fugitive solicitor is still wanted for questioning by the Irish Garda Bureau of Fraud investigation and has been found guilty of 57 different charges of misconduct.]


Would VLPS members agree,

‘According to Irish broadcasters RTE, lawyers for John Riordan told the court the case was extremely complicated and that their client was currently in Portugal but would be returning to Ireland and forwarding his detailed instructions on the case. The case is set to continue again on October 18.’ AND

‘The fugitive solicitor is still wanted for questioning by the Irish Garda Bureau of Fraud investigation and has been found guilty of 57 different charges of misconduct.’

‘lawyers for John Riordan told the court the case was extremely complicated and that their client was currently in Portugal’

Could it be argued that    ‘John Riordan, business partner of Michael Lynn ‘The fugitive solicitor’ might be a person (probably relaxing on a deckchair in Portugal)  should also be a person for ‘questioning by the Irish Garda Bureau of Fraud investigation’? J.F.

Solicitor struck off over forgery: Irish Times: irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Monday, July 26, 2010, 18:36

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre … ing60.html date accessed Tuesday 27th July 2010.

A solicitor who forged another solicitor’s name on a fictitious contract to get a bank loan was struck off by the President of the High Court today.

Daniel J. Coleman, formerly practising as Coleman and Co Solicitors, Ballinrobe, Mayo, also failed to comply with an undertaking relating to holding the title deeds for another property which led to a €320,000 loss for a credit union. He has been ordered to pay restitution to the credit union in that sum.

The High Court heard today an explanation over the fictitious contract was made on his behalf in which the “Celtic Tiger” was blamed for lowering standards.

Representing himself yesterday, Mr Coleman failed to get an adjournment to allow him get legal representation to defend the strike off proceedings taken against him by the Law Society. Mr Coleman denied misappropriating any monies.

Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns made the strike off order after saying he was satisfied Mr Coleman was “well aware” of all the developments which had led to a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) finding he was guilty of professional misconduct.

Earlier, Paul Anthony McDermott BL, for the Society, said one of the cases heard by the SDT related to the sale of part of a housing site in Tuam, Galway. Mr Coleman had forged the signature of another solicitor on the contract and also acted for both the seller and the purchaser in contravention of solicitor regulations, counsel said.

The only explanation offered by counsel on behalf of Mr Coleman at the SDT was to “blame the Celtic Tiger for the lack of attention to detail” and the lowering of standards generally, Mr McDermott said.

In an affidavit from David Irwin, a solicitor in the Society’s regulation department, he said the SDT found Mr Coleman guilty of misconduct last March by causing or allowing the name of a Limerick solicitor to be written on contracts for the sale of the Tuam housing site on May 19th, 2004.

As a result, Mr Coleman had allowed a fictitious contract to come into existence whereby it was presented to ACC Bank the innocent solicitor was acting in trust for the purpose of misleading the bank so it would loan money to a development company, which Mr Coleman was also acting for.

He was also found guilty of destroying a file relating to this contract without the instructions of the development company.

In relation to the credit union case, Mr McDermott said Mr Coleman failed to comply with an undertaking to hold the title deeds for land on behalf St Jarlath’s Credit Union, Tuam, Galway. The land involved was later sold on and the credit union was left around €320,000 short, counsel said.

The Society never found out where that money went and Mr Coleman was never able to provide files relating to it, Mr McDermott said.

PS. The statements:-

[Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns made the strike off order after saying he was satisfied Mr Coleman was “well aware” of all the developments which had led to a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) finding he was guilty of professional misconduct.

Earlier, Paul Anthony McDermott BL, for the Society, said one of the cases heard by the SDT related to the sale of part of a housing site in Tuam, Galway. Mr Coleman had forged the signature of another solicitor on the contract and also acted for both the seller and the purchaser in contravention of solicitor regulations, counsel said.

The only explanation offered by counsel on behalf of Mr Coleman at the SDT was to “blame the Celtic Tiger for the lack of attention to detail” and the lowering of standards generally, Mr McDermott said.]

Would VLPS members agree, ‘Mr Coleman had forged the signature of another solicitor on the contract and also acted for both the seller and the purchaser in contravention of solicitor regulations, counsel said.’ Could it be argued that solicitor Mr. Coleman appears to be quite an expert ‘white-collar-criminal’?

Would VLPS members agree, ‘The only explanation offered by counsel on behalf of Mr Coleman at the SDT was to “blame the Celtic Tiger for the lack of attention to detail” Could it be argued that it was most probably ‘crooked-solicitors’ and ‘money-sucking-lawyers’ such as Daniel J. Coleman, who ‘destroyed the Celtic Tiger economy in Republic of Ireland? J.F.

Thanks Joe. We got a letter at the outset stating what the hourly rate would be. However this property case has dragged on for far too long (years) and at this point we know that the bill will be extortionate. As far as our solicitor is concerned the work on the case is complete however there are still outstanding issues pertaining to our property that we have concerns about.

Judge's speech impeded fair trial, court rules The Irish Times - Thursday, July 29, 2010: By MARY CAROLAN

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire … 93219.html date accessed Friday 31st July 2010.

A SPEECH made separately by a judge while he was presiding over a trial of two brothers for murder effectively rendered their subsequent murder convictions unsafe, the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) has ruled.

The speech by High Court judge Mr Justice Paul Carney at University College Cork – while he was presiding over the trial of brothers Warren and Jeffrey Dumbrell – contained “prejudicial material” leading to a “reasonable apprehension” they had not received a fair trial, and rendered their murder convictions unsafe, the CCA ruled.

The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, said the address by Mr Justice Carney on June 10th, 2008, was circulated to the media, attracted extensive publicity, and included statements on several issues relevant to the brothers’ trial, including fatal stabbings, knife crime and sentencing policy.

The Chief Justice was giving the reserved judgment of the three-judge CCA outlining its reasons for overturning earlier this month the convictions of Warren (36) and Jeffrey Dumbrell (30), Emmet Place, Inchicore, for the murder of Christopher Cawley. A father of six, Mr Cawley was fatally stabbed at Tyrone Place, Inchicore, on October 29th, 2006.

Both brothers were convicted of murder after a Central Criminal Court trial and jailed for life. They appealed on grounds centring on claims Mr Justice Carney’s UCC law faculty speech prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

The address involved “trenchant and strong” statements germane to many aspects of the trial over which Mr Justice Carney was presiding, and it was likely to have made a “strong and enduring impression” on the jury, Mr Justice Murray said. The CCA was satisfied the trial judge had not intended this, and also underestimated the possible impact of his statements. The CCA was satisfied a reasonable person would have a reasonable apprehension the judge’s address may have consciously or unconsciously influenced the jury, he said.

The Chief Justice stressed, while the address contained several inaccuracies relating to certain decisions of the CCA and “lacked a balance” in its presentation of alleged deficiencies in sentencing in manslaughter cases, that was not relevant to the issues of law decided by the CCA in the Dumbrell appeal.

The only issues of law for the CCA related to the statements made by the trial judge as published and their possible impact on the trial, he said. The CCA’s decision also had “nothing to do” with rules or principles which should govern public statements or lectures by members of the judiciary.

It was “hardly necessary” to say such activities “are acceptable and positive, particularly when they may promote an understanding and discussion of the law or the administration of justice”.

In a 28-page judgment yesterday, the Chief Justice, sitting with Mr Justice Liam McKechnie and Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, noted one of the issues the Dumbrell trial jury had to decide was whether the brothers were guilty of murder rather than manslaughter, and that evidence heard at the trial was that the essential cause of death was a stab wound.

The Chief Justice referred to extracts from Mr Justice Carney’s speech, including references to knife crime and a statement that “fatal stabbings are out of control”. He referred to the judge quoting “uncritically” from Joan Dean, a member of Advocates for Victims of Homicide (Advic), which was set up to support family members of homicide victims.

The CCA was satisfied that, in quoting statements of Ms Dean, Mr Justice Carney had conveyed his approval of those views. The address also conveyed an endorsement by the trial judge of various claims, including that sentences in fatal stabbing cases other than murder did not do justice to the victims or their families, and that fatal stabbings were out of control, the CCA found.

The address indicated the trial judge endorsed claims that sentences imposed in fatal stabbing cases of manslaughter were wholly inadequate, the CCA said.

Every citizen had a right to a fair trial, the Chief Justice said. In this case, the Dumbrells argued there was a real danger the jury had been prejudiced by the judge’s address, and the test was whether a reasonable observer would consider there was such a danger.

Given the extensive publicity given to the address, the CCA considered it was probable that all or a significant number of members of the jury were aware of it. The trial judge had twice told the jury he was giving a lecture in Cork.

The trenchant statements concerning fatal stabbing cases would have resonated with jury members, considering that was the kind of case they were trying and as the statements were made by “their” judge, the Chief Justice said.

This case had special circumstances, the Chief Justice stressed. Key elements included: (1) the statements at issue were made by the presiding judge, the central figure of authority in a trial; (2) the statements were made and published during the trial and; (3) the nexus of the statements and the issues the jury had to decide.

This was a fatal stabbing case and the trial judge’s address had focused on such cases, the Chief Justice said. The address included statements about allegedly unjust sentences in manslaughter cases, and the jury in the Dumbrell trial had to decide between murder and manslaughter. References were also made to sentences failing to do justice to the families of victims when relatives of Mr Cawley were key witnesses in the trial.

The CCA was satisfied the statements were material that could prejudice a jury in arriving at a verdict, the Chief Justice ruled. Juries must be permitted to arrive at verdicts without influence from “extraneous and prejudicial” material, and such strong statements as were made, particularly by the trial judge, amounted to prejudicial material.

The CCA found Mr Justice Carney never intended his address to impact on the jury or influence the trial, although he had intended it would get wide publicity. Apart from his refusal on June 11th, 2008, to discharge the jury on grounds of his address, his conduct of the trial was fair and proper, the CCA ruled.

The address made no reference to the Dumbrell trial and there could be public discussion of the courts and sentencing without prejudicing any ongoing trial, the Chief Justice stressed. Cases of prejudicial publicity could also in certain circumstances be resolved by passage of time.

PS. This high profile  case and the following legal definitions of  ‘murder’ and ‘manslaughter’  may give a lot of food for thought.

Murder vs. Manslaughter

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3448300399.html date accessed Friday 31st July 2010.

Killing another person is commonly referred to as murder. However, the precise term for the killing of one person by another is homicide. Murder is a form of criminal homicide that has a precise legal meaning.

Murder is usually defined as the "unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought (or "an abandoned and malignant heart").

Malice aforethought refers to the perpetrator's intention of doing harm.

There are different legal variations of murder, known as degrees.

Degrees of murder vary by the gravity (seriousness) of the offence (usually measured by the intent of the perpetrator) and the sentence assigned to that offence.

For example, murder in the first degree, or first-degree murder, carries the sternest sentences and is usually reserved for murders committed with premeditation or extreme cruelty.

Manslaughter is also a form of criminal homicide.
The difference between murder and manslaughter is in the element of intent.

In order to commit voluntary manslaughter, a person must have committed a homicide, but have acted in the "heat of passion."

This mental state must have been caused by legally sufficient provocation that would cause a reasonable person of ordinary temperament to lose self-control.

To convict a person of manslaughter, it must be proved that the person who committed the homicide had adequate provocation (this cannot involve words alone), acted in the heat of passion, and lacked the opportunity to cool that passion.

There must also be a connection between the incident of provocation, the heat of passion, and the act that caused the homicide.

MANSLAUGHTER

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m013.htm date accessed Friday 31st July 2010.

The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter.

It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation.

Manslaughter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.

PS. The statements:-

[A SPEECH made separately by a judge while he was presiding over a trial of two brothers for murder effectively rendered their subsequent murder convictions unsafe, the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) has ruled.

The speech by High Court judge Mr Justice Paul Carney at University College Cork – while he was presiding over the trial of brothers Warren and Jeffrey Dumbrell – contained “prejudicial material” leading to a “reasonable apprehension” they had not received a fair trial, and rendered their murder convictions unsafe, the CCA ruled.

The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, said the address by Mr Justice Carney on June 10th, 2008, was circulated to the media, attracted extensive publicity, and included statements on several issues relevant to the brothers’ trial, including fatal stabbings, knife crime and sentencing policy.]

[The Chief Justice was giving the reserved judgment of the three-judge CCA outlining its reasons for overturning earlier this month the convictions of Warren (36) and Jeffrey Dumbrell (30), Emmet Place, Inchicore, for the murder of Christopher Cawley. A father of six, Mr Cawley was fatally stabbed at Tyrone Place, Inchicore, on October 29th, 2006.

Both brothers were convicted of murder after a Central Criminal Court trial and jailed for life. They appealed on grounds centring on claims Mr Justice Carney’s UCC law faculty speech prejudiced their right to a fair trial.]

[In a 28-page judgment yesterday, the Chief Justice, sitting with Mr Justice Liam McKechnie and Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, noted one of the issues the Dumbrell trial jury had to decide was whether the brothers were guilty of murder rather than manslaughter, and that evidence heard at the trial was that the essential cause of death was a stab wound.]


[Every citizen had a right to a fair trial, the Chief Justice said. In this case, the Dumbrells argued there was a real danger the jury had been prejudiced by the judge’s address, and the test was whether a reasonable observer would consider there was such a danger.]

Would VLPS members agree,

‘A SPEECH made separately by a judge while he was presiding over a trial of two brothers for murder effectively rendered their subsequent murder convictions unsafe, the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) has ruled’. AND

‘The speech by High Court judge Mr Justice Paul Carney at University College Cork – while he was presiding over the trial of brothers Warren and Jeffrey Dumbrell – contained “prejudicial material” leading to a “reasonable apprehension” they had not received a fair trial, and rendered their murder convictions unsafe, the CCA ruled.’

Could it be argued that the CCA are biased in favour of so-called ‘Judges’ in deciding that ‘The speech by High Court judge Mr Justice Paul Carney at University College Cork’  had influenced the jury of 12 people and that these same 12 people were not able to make a decision of ‘guilty of murder’ on the ‘evidence presented in the criminal trial’ for example ‘Murder is usually defined as the "unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought (or "an abandoned and malignant heart").?

Would VLPS members, especially those present in Letterkenny Court, when Judge John O’Hagan performed a welcoming speech for the jury by stating, e.g. “you the jury are most welcome and necessary in the court, because you bring common-sense into the court room as we in the legal profession can be removed from reality at times” or words to that effect.

Could it be argued that the ‘THREE JUDGES IN THE CCA’  are  perhaps very evidently lacking in ‘common-sense’ in deciding that they know better than the 12 members of the Jury?

Would VLPS members, agree,

‘Every citizen had a right to a fair trial, the Chief Justice said. In this case, the Dumbrells argued there was a real danger the jury had been prejudiced by the judge’s address, and the test was whether a reasonable observer would consider there was such a danger.’ AND

‘In a 28-page judgment yesterday, the Chief Justice, sitting with Mr Justice Liam McKechnie and Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, noted one of the issues the Dumbrell trial jury had to decide was whether the brothers were guilty of murder rather than manslaughter, and that evidence heard at the trial was that the essential cause of death was a stab wound.’

Could it be argued that when the jury of 12 people were deciding of their own free will that ‘whether the brothers were guilty of murder rather than manslaughter’ the jury of 12 people most probably based their decision of guilty of murder based on the evidence surrounding the ‘cause of death was a stab wound’ and not the speech by the judge at a university?

Would VLPS members reflect that, ‘Every citizen had a right to a fair trial’ was not very evident when ‘Mr Justice Liam McKechnie’ sent John Gill to jail as punishment in a civil case?

Would VLPS members also reflect that as Victims of the Legal Profession (VLPS) we are continually denied the right of:

‘‘Every citizen had a right to a fair trial’.

Could it be argued that it is a ‘complete contradiction of reality and common-sense’ in that as ‘VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION’ VLPS members are then ‘DENIED JUSTICE’ by having to bring our cases before ‘LEGAL FRIENDS’ of the very same ‘CROOKED LAWYERS’ who have made us ‘VICTIMS’ in the first place?

Could this ‘DENIAL OF JUSTICE’ by VLPS members be compared to a person having ‘MOST OF THEIR BLOOD SUCKED’ by  a ‘VAMPIRE’ and then the same person/victim  ‘SEEKING JUSTICE FROM DRACULA’?J.F.

Billy Wright inquiry cost £25.7m: NIO By Diana Rusk Irish News 15/07/09

http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2009/07/16/ date accessed Sunday 2nd July 2010. Filed under: an príomhbhóthar

A FOUR-YEAR public inquiry into the murder of the LVF leader Billy Wright has cost £25.7 million.

NIO minister Paul Goggins released the figure following a written parliamentary question by the DUP MP Sammy Wilson.

“The cost of the Billy Wright inquiry to the end of May 2009 is £25.7 million,” he said.

The bill covers the cost of investigating claims of security collusion in the murder of Wright by an INLA gang in the Maze prison more than 12 years ago. It covers the period from when the inquiry began in 2005 until final evidence was heard in May.

Wright – dubbed King Rat – was shot dead by the republican gang while he was serving an eight-year term for threatening to kill a woman.

While the murder was committed by a gang including the now deceased republican paramilitary Crip McWilliams, there were concerns about security lapses during the day.

In January the Northern Ireland Office said security costs alone for the inquiry chaired by Lord McLean were £577,000.

The overall costs have now been set at £25.7 million as the final evidence was heard in May.

A report is to be made public after the summer.

Last month DUP assembly member Ian Paisley jnr was fined £5,000 for contempt of court after he refused to disclose his sources to the inquiry.

According to Mr Paisley, he was told there had been a policy to destroy files within the prison service after the murder but the DUP man would not reveal the name of the prison officer who supplied the information.

The inquiry was recommended by retired Canadian judge Peter Cory in 2004 after allegations that security force members had colluded in the killing.

Similar public hearings have been held into the murder of solicitor Rosemary Nelson and Portadown man Robert Hamill.

All three inquires have been criticised in the past by outgoing chief constable Sir Hugh Orde who said they were a “huge money-sucking venture” because of the involvement of lawyers.

Northern Ireland’s most expensive public inquiry is into the events of Bloody Sunday, which Mr Goggins has said cost £188 million including legal costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence.

Wright’s father, David Wright, had campaigned for a public hearing into the death of his son days after Christmas 1997.

His son had not been raised in extreme loyalism and even played Gaelic football as a young boy growing up in south Armagh.

However, he had joined the UVF by the time he was a teenager and was the leader of the LVF in the Maze at the time of his death aged 37.


PS. The statements:-

[A FOUR-YEAR public inquiry into the murder of the LVF leader Billy Wright has cost £25.7 million.

NIO minister Paul Goggins released the figure following a written parliamentary question by the DUP MP Sammy Wilson.]

[Similar public hearings have been held into the murder of solicitor Rosemary Nelson and Portadown man Robert Hamill.

All three inquires have been criticised in the past by outgoing chief constable Sir Hugh Orde who said they were a “huge money-sucking venture” because of the involvement of lawyers.

Northern Ireland’s most expensive public inquiry is into the events of Bloody Sunday, which Mr Goggins has said cost £188 million including legal costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence.]


Would VLPS members agree, with  the statement by former Northern Ireland Chief Constable, i.e.

‘All three inquires have been criticised in the past by outgoing chief constable Sir Hugh Orde who said they were a “huge money-sucking venture” because of the involvement of lawyers.’

Could this article  be taken as more evidence of  the existence of  a “huge money-sucking venture” because of the involvement of lawyers.’?

Would  it have been more complete/accurate,  for ‘Former Treasury chief secretary Liam Byrne, who left a note for his successor, David Laws, saying: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.' To have concluded the note by; This is due to ‘MONEY-SUCKING-LAWYERS’ having ‘CONSUMED’ all the money”? J.F.

Ex-Treasury secretary Liam Byrne's note to his successor: there's no money left

Byrne left letter on desk for incoming minister David Laws

Paul Owen: Guardian Newspaper Monday 17 May 2010 15.17 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 … -successor date accessed Sunday 2nd July 2010. 

Former Treasury chief secretary Liam Byrne, who left a note for his successor, David Laws, saying: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.' Photograph: PA

The former chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, has reignited criticism of Labour's stewardship of the economy with a note for his successor which said "there's no money left".

Byrne's note was discovered by David Laws, the Liberal Democrat MP who was appointed by the coalition government to succeed Byrne as No 2 at the Treasury.

It is a convention for outgoing ministers to leave a note for their successors with advice on how to settle into the job. But Byrne's note – which he later said was intended as a private joke – drew attention to Labour's economic record when it was revealed by Laws at a press conference today.

Laws told reporters: "When I arrived at my desk on the very first day as chief secretary, I found a letter from the previous chief secretary to give me some advice, I assumed, on how I conduct myself over the months ahead.

"Unfortunately, when I opened it, it was a one-sentence letter which simply said: 'Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left,' which was honest but slightly less helpful advice than I had been expecting."

The letter recalls a similar note left by Tory Reginald Maudling to his Labour successor James Callaghan in 1964: "Good luck, old cock ... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."

Byrne said the message was meant in jest. "My letter was a joke, from one chief secretary to another," he said. "I do hope David Laws's sense of humour wasn't another casualty of the coalition deal."

Treasury sources said the full text of the letter from Byrne – dated 6 April, the day Gordon Brown called the general election – was: "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam."

Byrne's notes have caused bemusement before. When he was promoted to the cabinet in 2008, he gave officials a set of instructions entitled Working with Liam Byrne, which included the lines: "Coffee/Lunch. I'm addicted to coffee. I like a cappuccino when I come in, an espresso at 3pm and soup at 12.30-1pm ... If I see things that are not of acceptable quality, I will blame you."

Gary Gibbon of Channel 4 News claimed today that former chancellor Alistair Darling had also left a note for his successor, George Osborne, as well as a bottle – but, in Gibbon's words, "no revolver".

Legal Aid Payments Reflect Solicitors Commitment to Providing Access to Justice 15 June 2010

http://www.lawsoc-ni.org/news-events-an … o-justice/ date accessed Wednesday 4th August 2010.

The Law Society of Northern Ireland has said that it welcomes and is supportive of the publication of all information regarding expenditure from public funds.

The Society were responding to the publication by the Legal Services Commission of the list of legal aid payments for 2008//09 and 2009/10 to solicitors’ firms and barristers out of the legal aid fund.

Commenting on the publication the Society said that the lists clearly show the level of commitment of solicitors’ firms from across Northern Ireland who provide legal aid services to those most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of the public. This includes the victims of domestic violence, children who may be taken into care and those facing criminal charges.

The Society said that any consideration of the level of legal aid payments for 2008//09 and 2009/10 must acknowledge:

Payment to Solicitors’ practices

·Payment to solicitors’ practices represents payments for work undertaken in cases, which may take several years to resolve, and includes highly complex cases.

·Payments are assessed and authorised following a careful process of scrutiny by the Legal Services Commission and in some instances by judicial officers. (Costs Master – High Court.

·Payments to solicitors for services provided can be delayed for prolonged periods sometimes years.

Part of the explanation for the rise in payments in recent years is that the recent payments reflect payment for work undertaken over previous years and do not relate to the year in which payment was made. 

·Solicitors’ firms often bear the overhead and outlay costs of bringing legal aid cases until their conclusion and subsequent payment in addition to their own business overheads. This is an ongoing difficulty.

Commitment of Solicitors

·Solicitors represent clients without fear or favour and act in their client’s best interests under due process of law. This is a fundamental principle of democracy.

·Solicitors’ practices can range from the sole practitioner to the large firm with many practising solicitors and an extensive support staff including clerks, secretarial support and administrators. The figures make no distinction or reference to the size of the practice and the business overheads.

·The figures include payments due for fees which solicitors must pay to experts including forensic witnesses and family care professionals.

·The figures do not reveal the many thousands of individuals within the Community who without the benefit of legal aid would otherwise be deprived of access to justice under the law.

Commenting on the release of the lists, Mr Norville Connolly, President of the Law Society said:

The figures published include all solicitors’ overheads, including payments to staff, some barristers’ fees, witness expenses, business overheads including rent and rates and therefore do not reflect what the solicitor actually receives.

The level of fees are not set by solicitors but are set by Government or the Costs Master in the High Court. The figures published include a substantial amount of arrears which should have been paid years ago but which are only been paid now.

The NILSC have published payments to 100 firms and there are over 400 other solicitors firms who provide legal services to clients. These firms’ earnings from legal aid have not been published but should have been.

The Law Society has been for some time in discussion with the Legal Services Commission in respect of the appropriate rates of payments within the legal aid budget.

These discussions have included a meeting with the new Justice Minister, David Ford on Wednesday 2nd June 2010. These intensive discussions are ongoing.

Solicitors remain committed to ensuring that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our community have access to justice from an independent legal service across Northern Ireland.
ENDS]

COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE  MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS  THURSDAY, 17 JUNE 2010 SENATE CHAMBER, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/justice/20 … 100617.htm date accessed Wednesday 2nd August 2010.
Present:
Lord Morrow MLA (Chairman)
Mr Raymond McCartney MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Mr Jonathan Bell MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Mr Tom Elliott MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Conall McDevitt MLA
Mr David McNarry MLA
Mr Alastair Ross MLA
In Attendance:
Mrs Christine Darrah (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Roisin Donnelly (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Vincent Gribbin (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Kevin Marks (Clerical Officer)
Apologies:
Mr John O’Dowd MLA

The meeting commenced at 2.18 p.m. in public session.

1. Apologies

Apologies are detailed above.

2. Draft minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2010  Agreed: The Committee approved the draft minutes of the meeting of 3 June 2010.

2.22 p.m. Mr Bell joined the meeting.

3. Chairs Business

The Committee noted an up-dated Forward Work Programme covering the period up to summer recess.

2.30 p.m. Mr Elliott joined the meeting.

The Chairman advised Member that, given the low turn-out at the visit to the Probation Board, he would consider the approach that should be adopted for future visits and informal meetings.

4. Matters arising

i The Committee noted that the research briefing on the European Commission Work Programme 2010 and relevant justice issues had been rescheduled and would now take place at the meeting on 1 July.

ii The Committee noted that a meeting would take place on Monday 21 June at 1.00 p.m. in Room 135 when the Minister of Justice would provide a briefing on the current security situation and the recent murder of Mr Bobby Moffett.

iii The Committee considered a paper by the Clerk to the Committee on the Public Prosecution Service and accountability arrangements.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Committee on Procedures outlining the points covered in the Clerks paper.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Minister of Justice outlining the views of the Committee and asking to be kept informed of his discussions with the Attorney General and the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the issues.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Chairman should liaise on an on-going basis with the Chairman of the Committee on Procedures on matters of the accountability of the Public Prosecution Service and keep the Committee informed of developments.

iv The Committee noted that the Attorney General would attend the meeting on 1 July to outline his responsibilities.

v The Committee noted an Action Plan by the Prison Service in response to the Prisoner Ombudsman’s report into separated accommodation in Roe House, Maghaberry Prison.

The Committee also noted a press release by the Prisoner Ombudsman in relation to the publication of her annual report.

vi The Committee noted correspondence from the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service regarding information on the Legal Aid Reform proposals and very high cost cases.

vii The Committee noted a record of the informal meeting with the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association.

The press release by the Legal Services Commission providing details of solicitors firms and barristers who earned most from Legal Aid was raised.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to request further information including why the change of policy in relation to publishing the names of barristers and the reason for publishing the information at that particular time.

5. Briefing by Assembly Researchers on Legal Aid - A Country Comparison  Tim Moore, Senior Assembly Researcher and Ryan Molloy, Assembly Researcher joined the meeting at 2.45 p.m.

Tim Moore and Ryan Molloy, outlined the key points in their research paper, Legal Aid – A Country Comparison and answered questions from Members.

The Chairman thanked Mr Moore and Mr Molloy for the briefing and they left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to request that more up-to-date figures.

Agreed: The Clerk should identify other useful areas of research in relation to Legal Aid in conjunction with the Senior Researcher.

6. SL1 – Reform of Legal Representation (by way of Legal Aid) – proposals to make a Statutory Rule to regulate the circumstances where the court can assign two counsel to a defendant in a Crown Court case

David Lavery, Director of Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service (NICTS) and Robert Crawford, John Halliday and Padraig Cullen, Public Legal Services Division, NICTS, joined the meeting at 3.08 p.m.

The officials provided a briefing on the proposals to make a Statutory Rule to regulate the circumstances where the court can assign two counsel to a defendant in a Crown Court case and answered questions from Members on a range of issues including:

the need for an equality impact assessment; responses to the consultation exercise, issues arising from similar proposals introduced in England and Wales some years ago;

the criteria to be met under the proposed regulations; and the decision making mechanisms.

Alban Maginness placed on record a declaration of interest in relation to his occupation as a barrister.

The Chairman thanked the Director of the NI Courts and Tribunals Service and the officials for the briefing and they left the meeting.

4.15 p.m. Mr Elliott left the meeting.
4.19 p.m. Ms Ní Chuilín left the meeting.
4.19 p.m . Mr McNarry left the meeting.

The Committee agreed to postpone agenda item 7 until a later date.

7. Briefing by Representatives of the Law Society of Northern Ireland on Legal Aid Reform proposals
Norville Connolly, President of the Law Society for Northern Ireland, Alan Hunter, Chief Executive of the Law Society and Pearse McDermott, member of the Executive Committee of the Solicitors Criminal Bar Association joined the meeting at 4.20 p.m.

Mr Connolly, Mr Hunter and Mr McDermott outlined the Law Society’s perspective on the current Legal Aid proposals and answered questions from Members on issues including;

the role of Solicitor Advocates;

the Legal Services Commission’s information on the highest earners of Legal Aid;

the proposals to regulate the assigning of two counsel in the Crown Court;

the Law Society’s proposals for reducing the Legal Aid bill; and the current level of fees.

4.35 p.m. Mr Elliott rejoined the meeting.
4.36 p.m. Mr McNarry rejoined the meeting.
4.56 p.m. Mr Ross left the meeting.
5.38 p.m. Mr McNarry left the meeting.
The evidence session was recorded by Hansard.

The Chairman thanked Norville Connolly, Alan Hunter and Pearse McDermott for the briefing and they left the meeting.

8. Briefing by Representatives of the Bar Council on Legal Aid Reform proposals  Adrian Colton QC, Chairman of the Bar Council, Mark Mulholland, Vice Chairman, Brendan Garland, Chief Executive of the Bar Council and Gerarda Campbell, Young Bar’s representative on the Bar Council joined the meeting at 5.40p.m.

Adrian Colton, Mark Mulholland, Brendan Garland and Gerarda Campbell provided a briefing on the proposed Legal Aid and answered questions from Members on a range of issues including:-

the proposals to regulate the assigning of two counsel in the Crown Court;

Very High Cost Cases (VHCC) and the Bar Council’s proposals to reduce costs;

the Legal Services Commission’s information on the highest earners of Legal Aid payments and

the reasons for withholding Barristers names and comparisons between the courts systems in Northern Ireland and England and Wales.

The evidence session was recorded by Hansard.

The Chairman thanked Adrian Colton, Mark Mulholland, Brendan Garland and Gerarda Campbell and they left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed, with one amendment, a press release regarding its briefings from representatives of the Law Society and the Bar Council on Legal Aid Reform.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department of Justice seeking comments on the range of issues raised by the Law Society and the Bar Council in relation to the Legal Aid Reform proposals.

7.06 p.m. Mr McCartney left the meeting.

10. Correspondence

i The Committee considered correspondence from the Department of Justice regarding funding for Desertcreat College.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Minister of Justice and to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety requesting to be kept informed on this matter.

ii The Committee considered correspondence from the Department of Justice regarding the police injury award decisions.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department of Justice requesting further information in relation to appeals and to the Policing Board seeking clarification regarding the rationale for the policy not to back date payments in relation to successful appeal decisions.

iii The Committee noted correspondence for the Department of Justice enclosing a Tribunals Modernisation Strategy and Action Plan.

iv The Committee noted correspondence from the Department of Justice regarding information requested by the Committee about External Advisers .

v The Committee noted correspondence from the Department of Justice regarding issues arising from the June Monitoring round proposals. Further clarification, if required, would be sought at the budget briefing scheduled for the meeting on 24 June.

vi The Committee noted correspondence from the Department of Justice enclosing the Legal Services Commission’s list of the earning figures for the highest earning solicitors firms and barristers for 2008/09 and 2009/10.

vii The Committee noted correspondence from the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland enclosing 2 reports by the Inspectorate.

viii The Committee noted correspondence from the Public Prosecution Service enclosing a copy of the Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland 2010/2011 Action Plan.

ix The Committee noted correspondence from the Clerk to the Committee for Finance and Personnel regarding the September 2010 Monitoring Round and indicative timetable for forthcoming Budget 2010 process

x The Committee noted c correspondence from the Committee for Social Development on the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to forward the correspondence to the Department of Justice.

xi The Committee considered responses from other Assembly Committees on the Tribunal Service Reform Programme.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to refer the responses received to the Department of Justice.

xii The Committee noted a Freedom of Information request for a copy of the Prison Service briefing paper supplied to the Committee at its meeting on 13 May 2010.

xiii The Committee noted an invitation from Dawn Purvis MLA, Chair of the All Party Group on Children and Young People to a Seminar on Children’s Budgeting on Thursday, 24 June 2010 at 12 noon.

xiiii The Committee noted an invitation from the Law Centre (NI) and University of Ulster School of Law to a conference on Advancing Tribunal Reform on Wednesday, 23 June 2010

Agreed: The Committee agreed to request that an Assembly Researcher attend this event and prepare a paper for the Committee.

xv The Committee noted an invitation to a reception to celebrate all of the organisations and groups that have taken part in the Intercultural Achievement Awards in the Long Gallery, Parliament Buildings on Tuesday 22 June at 12.30pm.

xvi The Committee noted an invitation to the launch of the Fearless brand by the Crimestoppers Trust, which allows young people to learn about crimes that affect them, on 23 June at 12.00pm in the Ulster Museum.

11. Any Other Business
None.

12. Date and Time of next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on Monday 21 June 2010 at 1.00 p.m. in Room 135 Parliament Buildings.
7.09 p.m. The Chairman adjourned the meeting.  Lord Morrow of Clougher Valley MLA Chairman, Committee for Justice
24 June 2010

PS. The statements:-

[The Law Society of Northern Ireland has said that it welcomes and is supportive of the publication of all information regarding expenditure from public funds.

The Society were responding to the publication by the Legal Services Commission of the list of legal aid payments for 2008//09 and 2009/10 to solicitors’ firms and barristers out of the legal aid fund.]

[The NILSC have published payments to 100 firms and there are over 400 other solicitors firms who provide legal services to clients. These firms’ earnings from legal aid have not been published but should have been.]

[vi The Committee noted correspondence from the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service regarding information on the Legal Aid Reform proposals and very high cost cases.]

[The press release by the Legal Services Commission providing details of solicitors firms and barristers who earned most from Legal Aid was raised.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to request further information including why the change of policy in relation to publishing the names of barristers and the reason for publishing the information at that particular time.]

[Alban Maginness placed on record a declaration of interest in relation to his occupation as a barrister.]

[8. Briefing by Representatives of the Bar Council on Legal Aid Reform proposals  Adrian Colton QC, Chairman of the Bar Council, Mark Mulholland, Vice Chairman, Brendan Garland, Chief Executive of the Bar Council and Gerarda Campbell, Young Bar’s representative on the Bar Council joined the meeting at 5.40p.m.

Adrian Colton, Mark Mulholland, Brendan Garland and Gerarda Campbell provided a briefing on the proposed Legal Aid and answered questions from Members on a range of issues including:-

the proposals to regulate the assigning of two counsel in the Crown Court;

Very High Cost Cases (VHCC) and the Bar Council’s proposals to reduce costs;

the Legal Services Commission’s information on the highest earners of Legal Aid payments and

the reasons for withholding Barristers names and comparisons between the courts systems in Northern Ireland and England and Wales.]

Would VLPS members agree,

‘The Law Society of Northern Ireland has said that it welcomes and is supportive of the publication of all information regarding expenditure from public funds.’ AND

[The NILSC have published payments to 100 firms and there are over 400 other solicitors firms who provide legal services to clients. These firms’ earnings from legal aid have not been published but should have been.]

Could it be argued that it is most strange that ‘the NILSC only publish legal aid payments to 100 firms of solicitors and do not publish legal aid payments to an additional 300 firms of solicitors?

Would VLPS members agree,

‘The press release by the Legal Services Commission providing details of solicitors firms and barristers who earned most from Legal Aid was raised.’

‘Agreed: The Committee agreed to request further information including why the change of policy in relation to publishing the names of barristers and the reason for publishing the information at that particular time.’

‘Alban Maginness placed on record a declaration of interest in relation to his occupation as a barrister.’

‘Adrian Colton QC, Chairman of the Bar Council, Mark Mulholland, Vice Chairman, Brendan Garland, Chief Executive of the Bar Council and Gerarda Campbell, Young Bar’s representative on the Bar Council joined the meeting at 5.40p.m.’

‘the Legal Services Commission’s information on the highest earners of Legal Aid payments and the reasons for withholding Barristers names and comparisons between the courts systems in Northern Ireland and England and Wales.’

Could it be argued, that the ‘Silence is Deafening’ as to 'WHY?'  ‘The Bar Council’ (The Barrister’s Trade Union)  have prevented the NILSC from publishing the names of barristers who have been paid legal aid by the government of Northern Ireland from the public purse?

Would VLPS members agree it is unbelievable that ‘The Law Society’ (The Solicitor’s Trade Union) are asking that the NILSC publish more information regarding the names of the additional 300 solicitor firms who are paid legal aid and ‘The Bar Council’ (The Barrister’s Trade Union) appear to have prevented the NILSC from publishing information on the names of barristers who are paid legal aid from the public purse? J.F.

Kerry VLPS Land Registry Folios and Solicitor Sean McGlynn and his wife Catherine McGlynn.

[Land Registry County Donegal Folio 41834 Part 2 – Ownership. Title ABSOLUTE.

No 1. 30th September 1991 NO. W5919/91 SEAN McGLYNN of  SALLAGHAGRANE, LETTERKENNY, COUNTY DONEGAL, and CATHERINE McGLYNN  of  SALLAGHAGRANE, LETTERKENNY, COUNTY DONEGAL, are full owners.


Land Registry County Donegal Folio 41834 Part 3 – Burdens and Notices of Burdens. Particulars.

1.L.R. 29/49248 The property is subject to the fishing rights and fisheries (if any) except by order of the Land Commission.

2.14-JUN-2002 D2002WS004913W Charge for present and future advances repayable with interest. Irish Life & Permanent plc trading as TSB Bank is owner of this charge.

3.21-DEC-2007 D2007NL084992T Charge for present and future advances repayable with interest. Irish Life & Permanent plc is owner of this charge.
This charge is also registered on Folio DL40293

4.14-MAY-2008 D2008NL026962U An office copy of an affidavit by Alan Berrington, Company Secretary of Ballinskelligs, County Kerry of a Judgement obtained by Delpac Limited against Catherine McGlynn on the 24th. Day of November 2004 in the Circuit Court, Record No. 426/2003 in a matter or cause of Delpac Limited (Plaintiff) –v- Catherine McGlynn (Defendant) has been deposited in the Registry as a mortgage against the interest of Catherine McGlynn of Sallaghagrane, Letterkenny, County Donegal in the property herein.

The amount owing on this said Judgement is stated to be €9,445.07.

Note: This burden is registered also on Folio DL40293.

PS. Many thanks to Kerry VLPS for this Land  Registry article and suggestions.

[TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010 PERSONAL ATTACKS

[THE LONE RANGER HAS BEEN CANONISED!

I took a little visit to the crooked laywers (lawyers) site recently and I can honestly say I haven't laughed so much in a long time.

It turns out that 'The Lone Ranger' has been canonised.  I kid you not, posters on their guest book refer to him as 'St. John' and give him acolades (accolades) such as "If John can't get it done, no-one can". 

Well, clearly no-one can get whatever "it" is done, since The Lone Ranger is a bit of a disaster himself ~ a registered bankrupt and a jailbird, having spent time behind bars recently as a guest of the State.]

[WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010 JUDGE JOHN O'HAGAN

From the Rate Your Solicitor site under the section about Judge O'Hagan:

This alone shows how ludicrous their entire site actually is.  POSTED BY CATHERINE MCGLYNN AT 12:50 PM ]

http://www.victimsofthelegalprofessione … gspot.com/ date accessed Friday 6th August 2010.

Would VLPS members agree, the postings by Catherine McGlynn, even with her spelling mistakes are perhaps worth a mention given the recent communiction by Kerry VLPS?

‘Well, clearly no-one can get whatever "it" is done, since The Lone Ranger is a bit of a disaster himself ~ a registered bankrupt and a jailbird, having spent time behind bars recently as a guest of the State’

Could the phrase ‘bankrupt’ now be most relevant to solicitor Sean McGlynn’s wife, Catherine McGlynn, as stated?

‘..Judgement obtained by Delpac Limited against Catherine McGlynn on the 24th. Day of November 2004 in the Circuit Court, Record No. 426/2003 in a matter or cause of Delpac Limited (Plaintiff) –v- Catherine McGlynn (Defendant) has been deposited in the Registry as a mortgage against the interest of Catherine McGlynn of Sallaghagrane, Letterkenny, County Donegal in the property herein.

The amount owing on this said Judgement is stated to be Euro €9,445.07.’

Could it be argued that if solicitor Sean McGlynn’s wife has a ‘Judgement’ for not being able to pay her debt of  Euro €9,445.07.’ that as far as Delpac are concerned Catherine McGlynn is  ‘Bankrupt’ as ‘Delpac’ are deprived of money to which they are entitled’?

Would VLPS members agree, that this ‘Judgement’ against ‘Catherine McGlynn’ who is also   ‘Executrix’ of Madge Friel (jointly as ‘Named Executors’  with her husband solicitor Sean McGlynn) may explain why Catherine McGlynn, has been mysterious by her absence for all court hearings?

Would VLPS members agree that solicitor’s wife Catherine McGlynn may have been advised, that  because of ‘Not Having Clean Hands’ she should not  appear in any of the ‘Equity Civil Court’ hearings?

Would VLPS agree that ‘Catherine McGlynn’s publication on her website and reference to John Gill as ‘bankrupt’ could also be explained as ‘Old Irish Saying’ of ‘The Kettle Calling The Pot Black’?

Would VLPS members agree the action of Solicitor’s wife Catherine McGlynn in depriving Delpac of their money could be described as ‘history repeating itself’ as when her husband solicitor Sean McGlynn ‘deprived’ Madge Friel of access to her money in the last years of her life?

Would VLPS members agree, solicitor’s wife Catherine McGlynn, could be described as ‘catching –up’ on her husband solicitor Sean McGlynn, given also his involvement in ‘Bord Failte Fraud’ the mysterious ‘Castlefinn Multi-Activity Centre’ which is in reality an ‘abandoned detached house’ which appears to have just grown in the middle of a field?

Would VLPS members agree, that solicitor Sean McGlynn and his wife Catherine McGlynn might benefit from reading the following article on ‘Equity’ ? J.F.

[EQUITY

http://nuweb.northumbria.ac.uk/bedemo/S … age_06.htm date accessed Friday 6th August 2010.

Equity:
(1) Fairness or natural justice.

(2) That body of rules formulated and administered by the Court of Chancery to supplement the rules and procedure of the common law.

(3) A right to an equitable remedy, e.g. for fraud, mistake or where an estoppel arises.

The common law developed in a very rigid way based as it was on a system of writs. If a claimant's case did not fit within the strictures of a writ already on the register then they were denied a remedy.

Aggrieved claimants would then petition the King and the Chancellor would hear the case. This was the origin of the Court of Chancery.

Equity served to supplement the common law. It is not an entire system in itself. Instead equity enhanced the common law by creating new rights and remedies. Examples of rights include trusts and mortgages and examples of remedies include injunctions and specific performance.

There are basic rules around which equity have been developed. There is no definitive expression of them but the following are commonly found:

1.Equity acts in personam

2.Equity acts on the conscience

3.Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy

4.Equity follows the law

5.Equity looks to the intent rather than the form

6.Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done

7.Equity imputes an intent to fulfil an obligation

8.Equitable remedies are discretionary

9.Delay defeats equity

10.He who comes to equity must come with clean hands

11.He who seeks equity must do equity

12.Equity regards the balance of convenience

13.Where there are equal equities, the law prevails

14.Where there are equal equities, the first in time prevails

15.Equity, like nature, does nothing in vain

16.Equity never wants for a trustee

17.Equity aids the vigilant

18.Equality is equity

19.Equity will not assist a volunteer

20.Equity will not permit a statute to be a cloak (or an engine) for fraud ]

Judge lauds human rights advances at Belfast Féile The Irish Times - Wednesday, August 4, 2010 UNA MURPHY, Belfast

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire … 49987.html date accessed Monday 9th August 2010.

[THERE IS now no alleged abuse of human rights which is not reviewable by an independent court, Northern Ireland High Court judge the Hon Mr Justice Séamus Treacy said last night.

Speaking to an audience in west Belfast, Mr Justice Treacy said “That we have arrived at this new point is the consolidated work of many, not least the lawyers and the courts, whose independence, actual and perceived, constitutes the greatest bulwark against the abuse of State power”.

He said “extensive human rights jurisprudence” and “the enlarged role of the courts in upholding and protecting fundamental rights” were among the defining features of the modern post-Human Rights Act judicial system.

“The enlarged role of the courts means that challenges to alleged abuses of power by the State can be taken promptly before the domestic court. The sophisticated legal framework means that there is no alleged abuse of human rights which is not now reviewable by an independent court with rights of appeal and ultimate recourse to Strasbourg if necessary”, he said.

He was speaking on the role of lawyers in defending and upholding human rights at the annual PJ McGrory Human Rights lecture at St Mary’s University College, Belfast. The West Belfast MP Gerry Adams president of Sinn Féin, was in the audience. The event is part of the Féile an Phobail summer festival in west Belfast.

Mr Treacy was a successful human rights barrister involved in many high-profile cases including the Bloody Sunday inquiry before he became a judge of the Northern Ireland High Court.

“Recent events following 9/11 and 7/7 show that protecting human rights is a bit like fire-fighting – you put out one fire only to discover that it has reignited in another context. Although amid the clash of arms the law is not silent it is undoubtedly the case that the most egregious abuses of human rights have tended to coincide with national emergencies or war”, he said

“If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance that vigilance will be exercised by an alert and informed community with access to a strong independent, sufficiently resourced legal profession and by independent judges whose role is to uphold the law without fear or favour”, he said.]

[Barristers paid from public purse ‘must be named’ Commission refuses to identify recipients of taxpayer’s money.

The Irish News Thursday June 17th 2010 page 6 By Bimpe Archer.

Barristers who between them have collected £60.5 million from the public purse since 2008 must be identified to ensure taxpayers are “getting value for money”, according to critics.

Individual earnings reached almost £1.5m last year but the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission (NILSC)  will not name the recipients or cite a reason for their refusal to do so.

The NILSC body which came into being in April 2003 to take over the administration of publicly funded legal services from the Law Society, has a statutory duty to obtain “best value for money”.

The commission said it would not be naming the top-earning barristers this year after receiving objections from ‘The Bar Council’ and individual barristers.

Both the commission and the Bar Council refused to explain the nature of the objections, stating that not only were the barrister’s names confidential but the reason for not naming them was also “confidential”.

The names were first published in November 2008 after a three-year campaign by The Irish News for transparency.

Now there have been fresh calls for the publication of the names in the legal rich list which boasts a top earner of £1,461,399 in 2010.

SDLP assembly member John Dallat, who has just tabled questions about the legal aid cost for various court appearances by the Greysteel killer Torrens Knight, said there must be transparency.

“The minister must address not only what to cut in terms of legal aid, but also who gets it,” he said.

“The system must be made transparent. This medieval attitude that they can hide under a cloak of convenience doesn’t fit with a modern justice system.”

One hundred barristers have shared the bulk of the millions paid out from the public purse.

During 2008-2009 they collected £22m of the £25.5m pot and, in 2009 to 2010, £30m of the £35m.

Last year two individuals were paid more than £1m. with two more earning £972,410 and £923,411 respectively.

The Bar Council insists that hundreds of barristers earn “significantly less” from the legal aid fund, with 30 per cent receiving legal-aid payment of less than £5,000.

It is in negotiations with Court  Services over future fees.

The amounts include payments for work undertaken in previous years, including “significant sums” paid out after assessment the highest cost criminal cases.

Such delays have led to bitter disputes with barristers who withdrew from 13 of Northern Ireland’s biggest trials last year over lengthy delays in legal aid payments for the complex court cases.]

[Barristers’ defence case for huge fees. By Suzanne McGonagle. The Irish News Thursday May 13th 2010 page 14 NEWS LEGAL AID.

The Bar Council last night defended payments to barristers from the public purse of up to £150 an hour.

The body which represents barristers was responding to comments from new justice minister David Ford who said the legal profession needed to be “more realistic” about their pay.

The Bar Council said its members were “entitled  to a remuneration that is consistent with its expertise”.

Mr. Ford yesterday promised to cut the legal aid bill by 20 per cent.

He told barristers that they must be more realistic about their fees after revealing he would go ahead with plans to cut millions of pounds from the legal aid purse.

However, the Bar Council last night said a “just remuneration is essential to ensure access to a proper system of justice which meets the public need.”

Legal aid is paid by the government on behalf of those who cannot afford lawyers themselves.

The Court Service wants to reduce the annual bill for legal aid. This year’s total is expected to be around £94 million.

It has introduced a new maximum fee of £152.50 an hour for preparation work in what are called “very high cost cases” (VHCC) – down from £180 an hour.

Mr. Ford yesterday told the BBC that he would press ahead with cuts to legal aid and said most people would regard the new fees as a reasonably generous rate of pay.

The Bar Council last night said it was “actively engaged” with the Courts and Tribunal Service and has asked for a meeting with the justice minister to “discuss ongoing issues and challenges”.

“The Bar recognises the public interest in understanding the process of legal aid fees and in maintaining value in the high standards required to secure the provision of effective independent legal services,” a spokesman said.

“It is important to point out that it is incorrect to say that barristers will not accept the fee of £152.50 per hour. This is the maximum rate under the 2009 VHCC scheme.”

“Going forward it is unlikely that any case will meet this threshold in fact the proposed fees for all cases will be £65 per hour for juniour counsel and £95 per hour for senior counsel.”

“These are gross rates from which barristers must pay tax, bar library fees, professional indemnity insurance, national insurance, etc.”

“The Bar believes that its members are entitled to a rumeneration that is consistent with its expertise.”
“A just remuneration is essential to ensure access to a proper system of justice which meets public need.”

The Law Society last night said it had no comment to make.

How do legal aid fees compare with other professions?

Doctor: A full-time GP partner earns around £110,000 from the NHS and can also earn more from private consultations. Based on this annual salary the hourly rate of a GP stands at around £52. They are self-employed and pay around 22 percent of their salary into a pension. They also receive entitlements such as paid holidays and sick pay.

Dentist: Dentists in the north can earn around £100,000 annually which equates to around £48 an hour. Those involved in this possession are also self-employed but can avail of a pension scheme and are entitled to benefits such as paid holidays and sick pay.

Senior Teachers: The salary of a head teacher in Northern Ireland stands at around £50,000 depending on the size of the school they are at. They work around 220 days a year with an estimated hourly rate of around £24.  Teachers are also entitled to benefits including paid holidays, sick pay and pensions.

Senior Police Officers: A PSNI assistant chief constable’s annual pay can be as high as £98,004 giving the employee an hourly rate of £47. Police employees can avail of all the benefits of sick pay, holidays and a pension.

Five solicitors firms earned more than £1 million each in legal aid in the financial year 2007/08. In the same period five barristers earned more than  £500,000 each in legal aid.

Solicitors Firms.

Kevin Winters, (pictured) & Co - £3.15million.
Trevor Smith & Co - £1.66 million.
G R Ingram & Co - £1.23 million.
Madden & Finucane - £1.17 million.
Patrick Fahy - £1.08 million.

Barristers.
Seamus Tracey (pictured) £842,327.
Barry MacDonald £762,101.
Gregory Berry £706,099.
Martin O’Rourke £680,075.
Eugene Grant £538,424.]

PS. Perhaps these articles help to illustrate how Human Rights for the people of Northern Ireland does not extend to the right of the people of Northern Ireland to know the names of the barristers who have been paid vast sums of money from legal aid.

Would VLPS members agree,

‘Judge lauds human rights advances at Belfast Féile The Irish Times - Wednesday, August 4, 2010’

‘ THERE IS now no alleged abuse of human rights which is not reviewable by an independent court, Northern Ireland High Court judge the Hon Mr Justice Séamus Treacy said last night.’

Could it be argued that ‘Hon Mr Justice Séamus Treacy’ should now insist that all barristers are named for the amount of public money they get each year from legal aid as he was, in 2007/2008  i.e. ‘Seamus Tracey (pictured) £842,327.’?

Would VLPS members agree,

‘Speaking to an audience in west Belfast, Mr Justice Treacy said “That we have arrived at this new point is the consolidated work of many, not least the lawyers and the courts, whose independence, actual and perceived, constitutes the greatest bulwark against the abuse of State power”.

Could it be most strongly argued that for the Victims of the Legal Profession Society (VLPS) there is ‘no independence’ of the ‘lawyers and the courts,’ and the lawyers and judges are the ‘greatest abuse’ of legal and judicial ‘power’ against litigants in person such as all VLPS members?

Would VLPS members agree that ‘crooked lawyers’ and their judicial friends continue to ‘obstruct and frustrate’ any attempts for VLPS members to get justice and the barristers, ‘the money-sucking-lawyers’ continue to ‘consume vast amounts of legal aid from the public purse’  under various ‘cloaks of secrecy’?

Would VLPS members further agree that the statement;-

‘Both the commission and the Bar Council refused to explain the nature of the objections, stating that not only were the barrister’s names confidential but the reason for not naming them was also “confidential”.

How can this amazing ‘double confidential whammy’  be compatible with any democratic society or Human Rights?

Can, ‘the Hon Mr Justice Treacy’ specify if the decision of ‘Both the commission and the Bar Council’ and their ‘double confidential whammy’ or ‘DOUBLE DOSE OF COVER-UP’ by Northern Ireland’s  ‘BARRISTERS AND SO-CALLED LEGAL PROFESSIONALS’ can be ‘reviewable by an independent court’? J.F.

[Double whammy Meaning:- A double blow or setback.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/119750.html date accessed Tuesday 10th August 2010.

Origin:- A whammy was originally an evil influence or hex. It originated in the USA in the 1940s and is associated with a variety of sports. The first reference to it in print that I can find is in the Syracuse Herald Journal, October 1939:]

[The phrase came to be used widely, in the UK at least, during the Conservative Party's 1992 election campaign.

The Tories used a poster to undermine the Labour Party.

It contained the text "Labour's Double Whammy" and, on the boxing gloves, "1. More Taxes" and "2. Higher Prices".

The poster proved to be a highly effective part of the campaign for the Conservatives - who won the subsequent election.]