A WOMAN has appealed to the Supreme Court against a High Court finding that the Legal Aid Board did not breach fair procedures in refusing independent legal aid to her for proceedings brought by her against the board itself and a firm of solicitors.
Among various claims, Dolores Mannion, with an address in Dublin 8, argued the failure of the board to assign a solicitor in private practice to her, rather than a solicitor employed by the board, breached her rights to fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice.
Yesterday, a three-judge Supreme Court, presided over by Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, heard Ms Mannion’s appeal against that High Court decision and reserved judgment to Friday.
In 2001, Ms Mannion initiated proceedings alleging negligence against both the board and a firm of solicitors who had acted for her. She has also expressed unhappiness with services provided for her by a number of other solicitors whom she had instructed and who later ceased to act for her.
In late 2004, she applied to the Legal Aid Board for legal aid for her proceedings against the board and the first firm of solicitors. She sought a solicitor from private practice, arguing a solicitor employed by the board would have a conflict of interest, and asked the board to set up a panel of such solicitors.
The board informed her in March 2005 it would assign a solicitor who was a member of staff of the board who would act for her in a professional capacity within the solicitor/client relationship. It also said it had no plans to set up a panel of private solicitors to act in High Court cases.
Ms Mannion objected to that decision and also to the board’s updated guidelines relating to cases where people were taking legal action against it. The guidelines provide that the board’s managing solicitor should review all papers in a case, including the opinion of counsel for an applicant as to the strengths and weaknesses of a case, before a legal aid certificate is granted.
Ms Mannion ultimately brought a judicial review challenge against the board and instructed a private solicitor to act for her in those proceedings which were dismissed in 2007 by Mr Justice Brian McGovern.
Yesterday, representing herself, Ms Mannion argued Mr Justice McGovern erred in finding no breach of fair procedures or of natural and constitutional justice by the board in dealing with her case. The High Court failed to take proper account of her argument no one should be judge in their own cause, she said.
She said the matter had and continued to cause her great financial and personal stress, she had “suffered abysmally” and was left on her own to cope with no legal advice.
A solicitor employed by the board was of the very clear opinion there was a conflict of interest in acting for her, she said, and she was very angry her concerns were referred to by the High Court as “niggling doubts”.
The matter could have been resolved had the board set up a panel of independent solicitors as she had sought, she argued.
