Murphy v. M. [2001] IESC 33 (3 April 2001)

Murphy v. M. [2001] IESC 33 (3 April 2001)

The applicant is entitled to a recommendation for legal aid under the ad hoc scheme because his means are insufficient, the respondent did not adequately dispute this, and the complexity and exceptional nature of the proceedings make legal representation essential in the interest of justice.

Citation
[2001] IESC 33
Parties
Appellant: Mr. B.; Respondent: Criminal Assets Bureau
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Refusing Payment Out and Legal Aid Recommendation
Outcome
recommendation for legal aid granted; payment out of seized funds refused
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Legal Aid Scheme, Payment Out of Seized Assets, Means Assessment, Exceptional Circumstances
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Legal Aid Legal Aid Scheme Payment Out of Seized Assets Means Assessment Exceptional Circumstances

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. B.

Appellant

Criminal Assets Bureau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Refusing Payment Out and Legal Aid Recommendation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to payment out of seized funds for legal costs under Section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be recommended for legal aid under the ad hoc legal aid scheme (Criminal Assets Bureau)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is entitled to a recommendation for legal aid under the ad hoc scheme because his means are insufficient, the respondent did not adequately dispute this, and the complexity and exceptional nature of the proceedings make legal representation essential in the interest of justice.

Court Disposition

recommendation for legal aid granted; payment out of seized funds refused

Orders

  • Recommendation that the applicant be afforded legal aid under the ad hoc scheme, with representation by solicitor and two counsel, for forthcoming litigation only.
  • No order for payment out of seized funds for past legal costs.