Pádraig Langsch

In my last opinion published on 26 February in Irish Legal News, I commented on the minister for justice’s proposal to introduce a flat‑fee system in District Court criminal legal aid cases, and why the proposed fee structure would have an immensely adverse impact on the administration of justice, particularly on the most vulnerable people coming before the courts.

In this article, I would like to propose a number of reforms to the criminal justice system in the District Court which, I argue, would meaningfully address the minister’s concerns without undermining a person’s right to a fair trial or access to a reasonably remunerated lawyer.

I should stress that these are simply my own observations, and I fully appreciate that some colleagues may strongly disagree. Nonetheless, I believe the proposals below directly and constructively address the issues raised in the minister’s recent paper.

What are the minister’s concerns?

The minister’s concerns can be summarised as follows:

1. Criminal legal aid costs have risen sharply in the District Court, even though the overall number of criminal cases has fallen.
2. The current payment system is overly complex because it depends on the number of court appearances, certificates, and clients dealt with on a given day.
3. Legal aid cases are taking longer to conclude and usually involve more court appearances than cases without legal aid.
4. The additional appearances do not appear to improve outcomes, as case results are broadly similar to non‑legal aid cases (i.e. criminal legal aid vs privately paid).
5. The system generates delays and consumes significant court resources, placing pressure on the Courts Service, gardaí, prosecutors, the Prison Service, and the judiciary.

What I propose in the following paragraphs seeks to address the substance of these concerns without jeopardising the right to a fair trial.

I emphasise that these proposals are made in the wider context of my overarching belief that the current fees paid to legal practitioners under the criminal legal aid scheme (across all courts) are grossly insufficient and require a significant increase.

Proposal 1: Let Gary Doyle leave the court

The very first appearance before the District Court often involves an application for legal aid and an application for disclosure (colloquially referred to by some practitioners as a “Gary Doyle order”).

Where directions are outstanding, disclosure may not be ordered, as the case may be sent forward. But in many cases where directions are available on day one (and ideally they should always be available on day one, which in itself would save significant time and money), the case is adjourned for plea or date pending receipt of disclosure.

I have never quite understood why gardaí cannot provide disclosure to solicitors in advance of the first day. It’s not rocket science.

Early disclosure allows the solicitor to take instructions beforehand and, assuming no further disclosure is needed, to indicate to the court on day one whether the defendant intends to plead guilty or whether the defendant wishes to take a hearing date.

If the defendant pleads guilty, the matter is finalised that day. If the defendant contests the matter, a hearing date can be fixed immediately, thereby reducing the number of appearances before the court.

As a practitioner I have made too many “Gary Doyle applications”. Let poor Gary finally leave the court. Disclosure should be furnished in advance wherever possible.

Proposal 2: “Adjourned to the office”

If there is one practice criminal lawyers could definitely adopt from civil and family law practitioners it is the phrase “adjourned to the office”. I have personally never seen it in a criminal case, but I have seen it in family law cases. It works like this: a case is adjourned, but instead of fixing a new date in open court, the District Court Clerk or Court Office allocates the next date administratively after.

The beauty of this system is that it frees the court from spending time fixing dates. I qualified as a barrister in 2017 and later became a solicitor in 2021. In my humble nine years, if I had received one euro for every hour spent in court merely fixing dates, I would likely be retired by now.

Fixing dates is not a judicial function, it is an administrative one. It does not require a judge, a court presenter, a defendant, or lawyers. It is, in my view, an impermissible waste of everyone’s time (and of legal aid funds).

Here is what I propose.

A person appears before the District Court (via summons or charge sheet). Ideally, as noted earlier, disclosure should already have been provided. Two possibilities then arise:

A) Disclosure and directions are available, and jurisdiction is accepted, nothing is outstanding

The defendant can either take a hearing date there and then or plead guilty on day one. If the defendant pleads guilty, the case is concluded immediately. If not, the only further date is the final hearing. Simple.

B) Disclosure or directions are outstanding, or more time is needed

If disclosure is not yet available, directions are outstanding, or the defendant needs time to consider how to proceed (and for other reasons), and assuming the defendant is legally represented, the court should simply adjourn the case to the office.

The solicitor and gardaí then liaise with the District Court Office to obtain the next date once the outstanding issue is resolved. Suppose disclosure is furnished three weeks later. The solicitor takes instructions, the defendant instructs to plead guilty, and the solicitor informs the Court Office. A date is allocated without anyone having to waste a day in court.

Under such a system, a solicitor could obtain dozens of court dates for different clients in a matter of minutes through the Court Office. Under the current system, that same solicitor must often wait hours in a crowded courtroom to simply get a date for a client.

The core principle is this: if an outstanding issue prevents the case from progressing, it should not clog up the court list with unnecessary mention dates. These mention dates create more bench warrants, more appearances, more delays, and significantly higher legal aid costs where lawyers are paid for waiting around and fixing dates.

Proposal 3: Let’s keep the lessons from Covid

The Covid‑19 pandemic, despite its devastating human impact, transformed court procedures in largely positive ways. Some innovations have survived while others have unfortunately been rolled back.

The expanded use of video link facilities has been a genuine game-changer. Many defendants in custody now appear by video link, saving enormous time and cost. This is a clear and lasting improvement.

Another Covid‑era practice was equally transformative – defendants on bail who were represented did not need to attend on procedural mention dates. They appeared only for hearings or sentences. Overnight, the District Court no longer resembled a cross between the wildest Amazonian jungle and a busy train station. The atmosphere was calmer and far more efficient.

If a case was listed merely for mention, for example, for DPP directions, the defendant was normally excused, and the matter was handled by their solicitor or barrister. My understanding is that Tallaght District Court retained this practice until recently, but it has mostly been abandoned nationwide.

I say we should bring it back. There is simply no legitimate reason to require a defendant to appear for procedural matters where their presence is simply unnecessary. Removing this requirement would dramatically reduce bench warrants, decrease the number of appearances per case, and promote a more orderly courtroom environment. I further argue that cases would move more quickly as a result.

Proposal 4: Bring the pink sheets

The Junior Bar has been calling for this for years: legal‑aid pink sheets should be introduced in the District Court to streamline and simplify the claiming process. The current LA1 form is an administrative nightmare (for practitioners, for court staff, for everyone involved). It is pure bureaucracy at its worst. A simple, standardised pink‑sheet system would dramatically reduce the administrative load and improve the claiming process.

Charged with section 4 public order? Complete overkill!

Finally, I think we should look to other jurisdictions and seriously consider expanding Fixed Charge Penalty Notices beyond their current, traditional use in road‑traffic matters.

In my view, fixed‑charge penalties should be extended to cover other minor offences such as low‑value theft and minor public‑order incidents.

This approach prejudices no one – if a person accused of stealing a Toblerone from Centra maintains their innocence, they retain the right to contest the case in court. Or they can simply pay the fixed‑charge penalty. 

Conclusion

The minister is correct in one respect: things must change. Court time is precious and expensive. We must be more productive and innovative in how we conduct criminal cases.

But a flat‑fee model will solve none of the underlying issues. If anything, it will make them worse.

Pádraig Langsch, a solicitor and former barrister, is a partner in Limerick firm Langsch & Cunnane Solicitors LLP.