Written Answers Nos. 185-195
185. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to set out the fee rate for senior counsel, junior counsel and solicitors for the years 2012, 2013 and to date in 2014 for all fee types, including a breakdown based on work completed in the District Court, Circuit Court, High Court, Central Criminal Court, Special Criminal Court and Supreme Court under the criminal legal aid system. [21917/14]
View answerThe Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962 provides that free legal aid may be granted, in certain circumstances, for the defence of persons of insufficient means in criminal proceedings. Under the Act, the grant of legal aid entitles the applicant to the services of a solicitor and, in certain circumstances, up to two counsel, in the preparation and conduct of their defence or appeal. The granting of aid is a matter for the court.
The rates of fees payable to solicitors for attendance in the District Court and for appeals to the Circuit Court with effect from 13 July 2011 are set out in Statutory Instrument No. 362 of 2011. €201.50 is paid for the first appearance in court by the solicitor and €50.39 is paid for any subsequent court appearances.
Statutory Instrument No. 234 of 1976 provides that fees paid to counsel acting in the Circuit and higher courts for defendants who have been granted free legal aid are paid on a parity basis with the fees payable to prosecution counsel as set by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP). The fees paid to solicitors for the defendant are related to those paid to junior counsel as provided for by Statutory Instrument No. 33 of 1978. Details of the main fees payable in the Circuit Court and the Central Criminal Court with effect from 1 October 2011 are set out in the following table.
Regarding the request for information in respect of the Special Criminal Court, I wish to advise the Deputy that there are a small number of cases that are not suitable for hearing before normal jury courts. The Special Criminal Court deals with these cases and fees are set by the ODPP on a case by case basis.
Similarly, fees in respect of applications for Case Stated for the opinion of the High Court and the Supreme Court are set by the ODPP on a case by case basis.
SCHEDULE OF MAIN FEES
Senior Counsel
|
Court |
Brief |
Refresher |
Sentence |
Adjourned Sentence |
|
Circuit Court |
€1,716 |
€858 |
€370 |
€185 |
|
Central Criminal Court/Murder |
€7,127 |
€1,562 |
€370 |
€185 |
|
Central Criminal Court/Rape |
€5,704 |
€1,562 |
€370 |
€185 |
Junior Counsel
|
Court |
Brief |
Refresher |
Sentence |
Adjourned Sentence |
|
Circuit Court |
€1,144 |
€572 |
€247 |
€124 |
|
Central Criminal Court/Murder |
€4,752 |
€1,041 |
€247 |
€124 |
|
Central Criminal Court/Rape |
€3,803 |
€1,041 |
€247 |
€124 |
Solicitor
|
Court |
Brief |
Refresher |
Sentence |
Adjourned Sentence |
|
Circuit Court |
€1,144 |
€418 |
€180 |
€90 |
|
Central Criminal Court/Murder |
€7,127 |
€750 |
€180 |
€90 |
|
Central Criminal Court/Rape |
€3,803 |
€760 |
€180 |
€90 |
186. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide the crime statistics for the Garda R and J districts in 2013 and to date in 2014. [21918/14]
View answerThe Garda Síochána Act 2005 makes provision for the compilation and publication of crime statistics by the Central Statistics Office (CSO), as the national statistical agency, and the CSO has established a dedicated unit for this purpose.
I have requested the CSO to provide statistics directly to the Deputy.
187. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to outline the timeframe it takes for a complaint to be processed by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission once the complaint has been deemed admissible; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21925/14]
View answerThe Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was established under the Garda Síochána Act 2005 to provide independent oversight of complaints made against members of the Garda Síochána. The Garda Ombudsman Commission has a hugely important role in ensuring that public confidence in the Garda Síochána is safeguarded, and has extensive powers under the 2005 Act to enable it to carry out its responsibilities.
I am advised by the Ombudsman Commission that, conscious of the need to provide efficient and effective service for its various stakeholders, they have invested considerable time and energy in decreasing the duration of investigations arising from complaints. While they make every effort to ensure that all cases are concluded within a satisfactory timeframe, Inevitably some cases take longer than others to investigate.
Revised protocols were agreed and signed by the Chairperson of the Ombudsman Commission and the Garda Commissioner on the 23rd September 2013 aimed at ensuring the highest possible level of co-operation between the two organisations. These revised protocols put in place clear procedures for the timely sharing of information, including sensitive information, and more generally for enhanced co-operation. A committee was also established, chaired by a senior official of my Department, with senior representatives from the Ombudsman Commission and the Garda Síochána, to act as a forum where any future emerging issues concerning the protocols can be identified and appropriately addressed.
Following a decision by Government, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality is reviewing the effectiveness of the provisions of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and Regulations made under the Act insofar as they relate to the oversight of the Garda Síochána and the powers and remit of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.
The Government agreed on Tuesday last to a number of measures in response to the Guerin report. One of these measures was to urgently bring forward new legislation to strengthen the operation of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. This will be advised by the work of the Joint Oireachtas Committee.
188. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Question No. 459 of 25 June 2013 and 13 February 2014 the number of persons living in direct provision and elsewhere here who made their application for protection more than five years ago and are awaiting or engaged in asylum-related judicial review proceedings; and if she will provide a breakdown by duration of persons within this group who have deportation orders and by duration and current stage of asylum process of persons within this group who do not have deportation orders. [21930/14]
View answerI would refer the Deputy to my predecessor's reply to this Question on 30 April, 2014, the details of which are set out as follows:
QUESTION 577 of 30 April, 2014:
To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Question No. 194 of 13 February 2014, the position regarding the status of the outstanding information as requested.
ANSWER:
I am advised by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) of my Department that the information sought by the Deputy, specifically, details of the number of persons in Direct Provision and elsewhere who made their application for protection more than five years ago and are awaiting or engaged in asylum related judicial review proceedings. Before addressing the specifics of the Deputy's question it is important to put the relevant data in context. Firstly, it needs to be understood that the figures involved are constantly evolving and changing due to court outcomes at one end of the process, new proceedings entering the process at the other end as well as constant changes in the age profile of existing applications that are subject to Judicial Review (JR). Secondly, in quoting a figure in respect of Judicial Reviews it is important to note that the figures only represents the number of persons who have an active JR at that particular point in time. Thus a case which has been held up for a significant period of time (sometimes years), and only recently been decided / withdrawn / settled will not be reflected in figures quoted below. However, such Judicial Reviews will be the primary reason why many cases are over 5 years in the system even though the applicant currently may not be subject to an active Judicial Review. In addition, because families are invariably processed together a Judicial Review by a single member of a family will have the effect of holding up the processing of a significantly larger number of persons in the system. Finally, where a person has more than one JR taken against various bodies such as the ORAC, RAT, INIS, etc. these are counted only once in the figures.
For the reasons outlined above it would be misleading to draw a direct correlation between the number of active Judicial Reviews and the number of applications of a particular age profile in the system. However, it is clear, for the reasons outlined in the preceding paragraphs that Judicial Reviews have a major impact on processing times and the number of applicants impacted is significantly greater than the number of active Judicial Reviews in the system at any particular point in time. While every applicant has, of course, the right to seek redress in the Courts, the reality is that such Reviews (sometimes taken at different stages of the process) will inevitably prolong the period the applicants remain in the system until a final determination can be made in their case.
I am advised by the INIS that there are around 900 Judicial Reviews currently ongoing in respect of the persons who made an application for asylum over 5 years ago. There are over 350 Judicial Reviews challenging Deportation Orders, a very large proportion of which relate to failed protection applicants whose cases are more than five years old. The other JR’s are challenging decisions of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner ORAC), appeal decisions of the Office of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) or subsidiary protection decisions.
With regards to the processing of applications for subsidiary protection, the Deputy will be aware that responsibility for the processing of subsidiary protection applications passed from the Minister for Justice and Equality to ORAC in November 2013 when I signed into law the European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013 (S.I. No. 426 of 2013). Significant effort and additional resources (including engaging a panel of legally qualified persons to process cases) are being allocated to the establishment and operation of the new arrangements for the processing of these cases which include personal interviews for each applicant at the first instance and oral appeals by RAT of decisions of the ORAC. The ORAC, in consultation with the UNHCR, have recently published on its website details of how it will prioritise the process of scheduling persons for interview taking into account, inter-alia, dealing with applicants who are longest in the system first. The intention in any event is to process as many of these cases as possible to finality together with consideration of any leave to remain aspects arising by the end of this year.
189. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if the report by the Garda Commissioner regarding a convicted sex abuser (details supplied) in County Donegal has been completed and made available to her; if she will consider releasing the report to the victims; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21942/14]
View answerI am informed by the Garda authorities that, following an investigation by An Garda Síochána, a report in relation to the case was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). I am further informed that the DPP directed no prosecution in this case and that all parties were informed of this decision.
As the Deputy will appreciate, Garda reports concerning criminal investigations are not published. However, I am advised that a further report had been sought from the Garda authorities by my predecessor, on any issues arising from the case, following the decision not to prosecute, and I will consider this material upon its receipt.
190. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality in view of the recent remarks by Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark in her recent written explanation of a High Court judicial review, which quashed a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and which included the comment: "Sometimes the Court is called upon to review a decision which is so unfair and irrational and contains so many errors that judicial review seems an inadequate remedy to redress the wrong perpetrated on an applicant. This is such a case."; the support of Amnesty International for the applicant; the accountability there is for members of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal; the means, if any, that exist for the censure or removal of RAT members where blatant abuse of process take place; in view of the defiance by a second RAT member of the High Court judicial review in this case in a second hearing and the decision of the chair of the RAT to hold a third hearing, if she intends to make any inquiry into such an inexplicable and potentially costly waste of time and legal expense, not to mention the distress caused to the applicant in question; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21943/14]
View answerThe case mentioned by the Deputy was the subject of an ex-tempore judgment of the High Court in January 2013 with the written judgment delivered in January 2014. As the Deputy will be aware the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is a statutory independent body established under the Refugee Act, 1996 to decide appeals against negative recommendations in respect of applications for refugee status issued by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) and to make recommendations to the Minister for Justice and Equality in relation to whether or not refugee status should be granted.
In accordance with the Refugee Act 1996, Tribunal members are appointed by the Minister and shall hold office on a part time basis for a term of three years on terms and conditions determined by the Minister and agreed with members by way of signed contract. The contract stipulates that a member of the Tribunal may be removed from office by the Minister for stated reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to complete agreed business workloads within time frames agreed with the Chairperson; failure to furnish reports and decisions within a time frame set by the Chairperson or breach of any of the other terms and conditions of the contract.
The management of the Tribunal is the responsibility of the Chairperson who under the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended) is required “to ensure that the business of the Tribunal is managed efficiently and that the business assigned to each division is disposed of as expeditiously as may be consistent with fairness and natural justice ”. The Chairperson is statutorily responsible for assigning the workload to individual members.
The Deputy may be aware that in August, 2013 a new Chairperson of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was appointed following a selection process run in conjunction with the Public Appointments Service. Since taking up his position, I understand that the Chairperson has begun a major review of Tribunal practices, procedures and guidelines. In September, 2013 the Assigning Policy of the Tribunal was published, which details how cases are assigned amongst the various members of the Tribunal. The new Chairperson has also established a Tribunal Users Group which comprises of the Chairperson and representatives nominated by the Law Society and the Bar Council. I am informed that the group will meet on a regular basis to discuss matters of interest and/or concern to users of the Tribunal. I am advised that the Group has considered draft procedural guidelines which will set out the practice and procedure relating to how appeals are dealt with by the Tribunal. Other guidelines are also in preparation, including a comprehensive guideline for dealing with child applicants.
Following on from the appointment of new Tribunal members and the expansion of the Tribunal's remit to the area of subsidiary protection under the European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013, which my predecessor signed into law in November 2013, a comprehensive training programme has been undertaken by the Tribunal, to ensure that the new members are fully equipped to discharge their duties to the highest professional standards.
I am informed that as part of this training programme, the Tribunal has been working closely with the UNHCR in developing a new decision template designed to enhance the robustness of the process and to assist Members in their difficult task. This process has been greatly enhanced by the participation, via the UNHCR, of an internationally recognised former Canadian refugee law judge who has been central to the training provided.
The Tribunal has further advised me that it is actively managing its judicial review caseload by early intervention and negotiating to keep costs to a minimum. The Tribunal continues to work closely with the CSSO to achieve the best possible outcomes to such legal challenges.
The Chairperson in his strategy statement for 2014-2017 commits the Tribunal "to consider and decide refugee, subsidiary protection and Dublin Regulation appeals to the highest professional standards". He has also committed to an ambitious reform programme to achieve the Tribunal's strategic goals and to undertaking a review of Tribunal policy on public access to Tribunal documents, including the Tribunal's database of previous decisions.
I am confident that the developments which I have outlined will have a major impact on the performance and perception of the Tribunal as they are integrated into its ethos and practices in the coming year.
With regard to the Deputy's assertions in relation to the "defiance by a second RAT member ...", I am advised by the Chairperson of the Tribunal, that when a case is remitted to the Tribunal for a re-hearing the member assigned the case is not made aware of the previous judicial review, as to do so could prejudice an applicant. The legal advisors for the applicant may bring attention to any previous judgement if they wish to do so. However, the hearing is a de novo hearing and the member concerned must be satisfied that the applicant satisfies the legal test for asylum. The Chairman has further advised that in the case concerned, the written judgment of Harding Clarke J., referred to by the Deputy was not available to the second member who heard the case, as it was only issued in January 2014.
It must be remembered that members of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal are independent in the exercise of their functions, and it is a matter for the Tribunal to consider whether a person is a refugee or not. The High Court, on a judicial review, considers the process by which the decision was reached and does not enter into the merits of the case.
Finally, the Deputy might wish to know that the applicant in question was granted refugee status this month on foot of his appeal to the Tribunal.
191. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to set out the amount her Department has spent on translation and interpreting services over the past ten years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21951/14]
View answerI will contact the Deputy directly on this matter.
192. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to explain the rights a home owner who is paying management company fees annually has to ensure that the steps to the property are fully fixed by the management company (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21955/14]
View answerWhile I am not in a position to interpret the law or to comment on individual cases in response to a Parliamentary Question, the general position is that an owners' management company (OMC) has obligations to maintain and, where necessary, repair common areas of a multi-unit development for which it has responsibility. The question of whether any steps leading to a residential unit form part of the common areas should be clear from the owner's title documents.
As regards service charges, the position is that section 18 of the Multi-Unit Developments 2011 requires each OMC to establish and maintain a scheme of annual service charges to fund the costs of insurance, maintenance and other common or shared services. These service charges, which are not therefore directly related to the value of residential units in the development, must be calculated on a transparent basis, be apportioned on an equitable basis between unit owners and be approved by the owners at a meeting of the OMC. Section 18 also provides that each owner is under an obligation to pay annual service charges, while section 22 provides that unpaid service charges may be recovered by the OMC concerned as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 24 of the Act deals with the resolution of disputes and it provides that a person may apply to court for an order to enforce any right conferred or obligation imposed by the Act. The court, if satisfied that a right has been infringed or an obligation has not been discharged, may make such remedial order as it deems appropriate in the circumstances with a view to ensuring the effective enforcement of the right or the effective discharge of the obligation.
194. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to set out the position regarding proposed gun club legislation (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21964/14]
View answerIn light of public safety concerns highlighted by An Garda Síochána and difficulties in the interpretation of the legislation expressed by members of the judiciary, my Department is currently examining key policy, legislative, administrative and other issues relating to firearms licensing in conjunction with An Garda Síochána. I expect to receive and consider a report in relation to these matters within 2 months. When I have considered that report I will consider what further action is necessary in relation to the firearms licensing system.
195. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if a lessee is permitted to claim vacancy or squatters' rights on lands in which they have been a tenant for a period of more than ten years; if a verbal rental agreement is binding; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21965/14]
View answerWhile I am not in a position as Minister to interpret the law or to provide advice on a particular case in response to a Parliamentary Question, the following is the general position in relation to adverse possession of land. Adverse possession of land, sometimes referred to as squatters' rights, arises where, following occupation of the land, the limitation period set out in the Statute of Limitations 1957, usually a period of 12 years, expires, thereby rendering it impossible for the title holder to commence proceedings for recovery of the land. Such a right would not, however, normally arise where the occupier has been given permission to occupy the land by the title holder. This is a very complex area of law and the question of whether the right to adverse possession of land applies in any specific case will depend on the facts and circumstances surrounding it.
