January 8th 2016

The Catholic Church is the most accomplished and probably the most corrupt body in history. The word catholic is derived from the Greek word katholikos, which means "universal". I believe there is another well-known entity which peddles fantasy but is not nearly as capable or successful as Mother Church. This other organisation is called ‘Universal Studios’. The Catholic Church is funded in the main by the pennies and penances of the common people.

Another entity which is similarly funded is the Legal Aid Board.

The Board's Mission Statement, set out in its Corporate Plan

2015 – 2017, is;

"Our Mission is to facilitate the effective resolution of civil disputes through the delivery of efficient and accessible legal aid and mediation services and to effectively manage and administer the State’s criminal legal aid schemes".

The Corporate Plan sets out a number of steps that the Board has adopted in order to achieve the objective set out in its Mission Statement.

The second leg of ‘Legal Aid’ is the criminal variety. This is some load of horseshit. The constitutional right of people to a fair trial means that every day district court judges have to decide whether a person of limited means should be given free access to a solicitor and up to two barristers. The judges will invariably err on the side of caution and grant the legal aid certificate because it is better to protect the trial, and avoid a costly appeal, than it is to be too frugal only to create a weak link in the chain. This policy has seen gangsters in control of multi-million euro drugs operations granted legal aid to fight criminal charges or the Criminal Assets Bureau’s efforts to seize their properties.

 “The Criminal Legal Aid Scheme must operate with due regard to these rights and that any unreasonable block on legal aid could give a convicted defendant an avenue for appeal or prohibition of the prosecution,” and, “The overriding concern is to ensure that no risk arises in relation to the prosecution of persons charged with criminal offences before the courts,” said former Justice Minister Alan Shatter.

The courts have been regularly faced with appeals that are based not on the merits of the evidence but on the belief that a person did not have proper legal cover. This has meant that efforts to whittle down the costs of legal aid, through reduced fees, face an uncertain future.

The drive suffered a blow in 2011 with a Supreme Court judgment which allowed an appeal on the basis that an accused man was not given free legal aid so he did not have a fair trial. Imagine the poor burglar, Mr Joyce,

Not receiving a fair trial. For fuck’s sake!

In civil actions a person has to apply to the Legal Aid Board and face a waiting list in order to be assessed. Civil legal aid is mostly sought in family law matters. To get civil legal aid a person must have an annual disposable income of less than €18,000. This allows for deductions for taxes, up to €8,000 in accommodation bills and the costs of dependent children or a spouse. In civil actions a person has to apply to the Legal Aid Board and face a waiting list in order to be assessed. Even those who get approved have to make a minimum contribution of €130.

The total burden on the taxpayer to operate these two systems totals almost €100million. Ironically, the amount spent defending criminals is twice as much as that spent on Civil Legal Aid. In other words, more than €60million is spent annually defending the indefensible. The Legal Aid Board has its headquarters at 48-49 North Brunswick St. Dublin. From what I can ascertain the Criminal Legal Aid Section is a very small adjunct of the main office.

The Legal Aid Board proper has one Muriel Walls of Walls and Toomey Solrs. Fitzwilliam Sq. as chairperson ably assisted by 12 other professionals. The Criminal Legal Aid Section has no governing body or board. This is unbelievable. Since the lion’s share of the taxpayer’s money is spent on the latter surely it should control the Board with the Civil Aid section as a sub-division. Of course that might remove the ultimate power in such matters from the legal profession and the judiciary. That would be a shame.

My own experience with the Legal Aid Board has been less than encouraging. When Tormey & co. Solrs. Confirmed that the firm would not take my case of the paedophile priest I applied to the Legal Aid Board as was my ‘constitutional right’ a la Mister Shatter.

The ‘Information Gathering’ application form is 4 pages long and has numerous sections to be filled out. Compare this to the applicant for Criminal Aid who merely has to tell the judge that he requires ‘Taxpayer’ Legal Aid and it is granted automatically. No means test, no proof of income, no €18,000 earnings threshold and no research into details which of course don’t have to be provided. In a great many of these cases, usually starring non-Irish nationals or members of the mobile fraternity the solicitor in question informs the judge that the applicant is in receipt of social welfare benefit of some kind. There it is; taxpayer robbed again.

The Prodigal filled out the appropriate forms and collected the proofs of the written content. Then I rocked up to the Law Centre, Athlone to have my case considered.

On March 22^nd I received notification that my application had been successful and that I satisfied all the financial criteria for Legal Aid Services. Bingo! My arse.

I followed all protocols and procedures correctly and submitted my schéal to the Personal Injuries Unit at Smithfield as advised. I spoke with the Solicitor who apparently screens and evaluates such cases and outlined the genesis of my situation to her. She seemed concerned and sympathised with my plight. I had previously forwarded the correspondence of Tormey & Co. and the opinion contained therein. In tandem with this I had supplied a very comprehensive compendium of information on the background to the case including the famous Bishop’s ‘file’.

On 8 April I received a very voluminous correspondence from the same Catherine Martin.

This letter was entitled ‘Letter of Engagement’, contained six pages and sixteen paragraphs of ‘Terms and Conditions’. Oh to be a common criminal!

On the same day I received another correspondence from Ms Martin.

Personal Injuries Unit Law Centre (Smithfield) 48-49 North Brunswick Street George's Lane Dublin 7 DX 1085 Four Courts

08 April 2015

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL Mr PJ Walsh 6 Sli Na Mona Ballymahon Re: Application for Legal Aid

Dear Mr Walsh,

I refer to previous correspondence herein and in particular to my telephone conversation with you on the 1st of April, 2015. (All Fool’s Day)

I advised you in relation to this matter and I requested that perhaps you would write out a short history of your case stating what action was taken by you as a result of the abuse suffered. You should forward this to me and when I receive same I will contact you further.

I am enclosing herewith the Letter of Engagement which sets out the terms and conditions for the granting of legal aid.

I would point out at this stage that while you have been assessed financially eligible to apply for legal aid this does not mean that legal aid will be granted. The granting of legal aid is based on a merits test and before legal aid is granted the Legal Aid Board must be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of your claim succeeding. I advised you as to the statute of limitations in taking a claim for compensation and from the information you have given me so far I am not sure whether you would still be within time to make a claim. However, once I received the written instructions from you I will contact you further.

Yours sincerely,

Solicitor Law Centre (Smithfield) (Personal lnjuries Unit)

Aturnaetha Bainistiochta/ Managing Solicitor: Catherine Martin

After this correspondence The Prodigal supplied a precise but comprehensive account of the history of the case and very solid reasons for not initiating proceedings sooner. (These are contained elsewhere in this diary). Since the Bishop had confirmed in writing that the actions of which Fr. Brendan Hynds stood accused had occurred I could foresee no difficulty in progressing this case as it was not anticipated that any defence would be mounted. Wrong again; Catherine Martin sent me the following in July.

                                                                            

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

Mr PJ Walsh

6 Sli Na Mona Ballymahon

Personal Injuries Unit Law Centre (Smithfield) 48-49 North Brunswick Street George's Lane Dublin 7 DX 1085 Four Courts

Our Ref: 1880902/OM

29 July 2015

Re: Application for Legal Aid

“Dear Mr Walsh,

I refer to previous correspondence herein. I acknowledge receipt of the file you sent me in relation to your application. I have read through the file and in particular the legal advice already received by you from Tormey Solicitors. Having dealt with these unfortunate cases down through the years I concur with the advice given by Tormey Solicitors in relation to the delay factor. It also appears, that while you did suffer from the abuse that was perpetuated unfortunately you have no supporting medical evidence setting out the injury and the damage suffered.

As advised previously it is extremely difficult to get legal aid in these cases and I do not believe that legal aid would be granted to enable you to bring proceedings against the diocese given the late factor in this case. As pointed out by Tormey Solicitors you initially made a complaint in this case in 2005 which is 10 years ago. I believe that there would be huge difficulty in you succeeding in a case given the delay involved.

If you wish for me to make a submission to the Legal Aid Board for them to view your application I will of course do so. However, I cannot recommend that legal aid be granted in this case”.

I await hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Martin Solicitor Law Centre (Personal lnjuries Unit)

Aturnaetha Bainistiochta/ Managing Solicitor: