Concern over Supreme Court legal aid for Gerry Adams

The former Sinn Fein president had been convicted of attempting to escape from the Maze prison in 1973 and 1974, however, he appealed that conviction on the grounds his initial detention under internment without trial had been unlawful.

Lawyers for Mr Adams argued that the Interim Custody Order used to detain him in July 1973 had not been personally authorised by the then NI Secretary Willie Whitelaw.

Mr Beattie has raised concerns that someone with “Mr Adams’ means” could qualify for legal aid while others less well off have had their applications refused.

Calling for an investigation into how legal aid is allocated in Northern Ireland, Mr Beattie said that “serious questions need to be asked how the qualifying criteria are met”.

He said the bill for legal aid in Northern Ireland “continues to spiral out of control”.

Mr Beattie said: “Nobody is denying anyone who is entitled to legal aid from receiving legal aid but having experience of constituents including domestic abuse victims, those in family court proceedings and victims of crime denied legal aid, it is very difficult to understand how anyone with Mr Adams’ means could qualify.

“Again, that is not to say he does not, but it is to say there needs to be a better understanding of the legal aid system to ensure it supports those it is actually intended to support.”

Mr Beattie added: “I cannot understand why by head of population, the Northern Ireland legal aid bill is three times that of Scotland.

“There needs to be a deep dive into the NI legal aid system to ensure that those who need it and are entitled to it, are the ones who actually receive it.”

It is understood that the NIO was initially expected to foot the bill for Mr Adams’ Supreme Court legal costs. However, it was later determined that the Legal Service Agency (legal aid) was the most appropriate body to cover the costs.

Mr Adams’ solicitor Seamus Collins said: “The decision to award Gerry Adams legal aid for this Supreme Court case did not involve any assessment of Gerry Adams’ means.

“The decision was made by the court itself, primarily on the merits of his case, in which the Court of Appeal in NI certified that it involved a point of law of general public importance.”

The Department of Justice (DoJ) has rejected the claim that the legal aid bill is spiralling upwards.

A DoJ spokeswoman said: “Following reform of criminal legal aid in 2016, expenditure on legal aid has fallen from £105.4m in 2014/15 to £82.1m in 2019/20. Between 2016/17 and 2019/20 legal aid expenditure has been between £84.2m and £79.2m. The level of legal aid spend is therefore clearly not ‘spiralling out of control’.

“Mr Adams was granted legal aid by the Court of Appeal. The grant of legal aid for criminal cases before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court are not subject to any financial eligibility test.

“The Supreme Court has, further to representations from the Secretary of State against who costs were originally awarded, amended the terms of its original order which it considered was inappropriate.

“Mr Adams will have his costs met by legal aid in line with the legislation and direction of the Court.”

The spokeswoman added: “The Legal Services Agency has an intensive programme of work to deal with the qualifications on its accounts. In the 2019/20 Annual Accounts the Comptroller and Auditor General acknowledges the progress made in dealing with these issues.

“The Agency has a programme of work to address these qualifications. The legal aid system has been the subject of a number of reviews and is the subject of an ongoing programme of reform designed to ensure that it represents value for money and supports equitable access to justice.”

Justice Minister Naomi Long said: “It is disappointing, given the number of statements which Mr Beattie and other MLAs have made about the need to reduce the legal aid bill, that he and a majority of MLAs only last week, voted in favour of an amendment to extend legal aid provisions in a manner that was uncapped, un-costed, subject to no proper policy development process or analysis, and ignored the advice to allow the proper development of robust proposals in advance of implementing change.”