Department of Justice running €1.3 million over budget due to increase in asylum seekers
In a series of letters, the board's senior management said they were struggling with 'staff retention issues and low morale' due to their workload.
Advertisement
A letter in February said despite an increase in their allocation, they were running at least €1 million over budget which they said was a matter of 'significant concern.'
In later correspondence, their chief executive told the department that they were headed for a 2025 pay bill of at least €33.5 million despite only having an allocation of €32.4 million for pay.
Even with that, there were 34 vacancies in the Legal Aid Board and the board was warning of 'very serious impacts on service provision.'
Chief executive Joan Crawford told the department in May that without a further increase in budget, they would be forced to immediately cease hiring staff.
Advertisement
She wrote: 'This will have a drastic impact on the operation of the Legal Aid Board and will render it impossible for [us] to provide the services that [we are] required to provide under statute.'
Ms Crawford said some law centres would be left with no option but to close to new applications to deal with a backlog of cases.
She said this could leave certain counties without access to a local law centre placing further pressures on nearby centres.
Ms Crawford said cases would have to be prioritised meaning cases involving divorce, separation, child custody and guardianship being put on the long finger.
Advertisement
The Legal Aid Board also warned their budget constraints were having a knock-on effect on the courts and judges.
The letter said: 'This is leading to delays in dealing with the conclusion of cases in already difficult situations and where the interests of children are involved.
'Often issues such as the necessity for a voice of the child report or welfare report are only identified on the appointment of a solicitor further causing delays for all involved.'
Ms Crawford said the enormous pressure on staff was leading to staff departures and dissatisfaction from clients.
Advertisement
'In all areas across the Board, the non-filling of vacancies will create well-being and morale issues, with staff feeling under pressure,' she wrote.
'As it stands, the Board is regularly losing staff with experience and expertise to other state bodies and government departments who can offer better conditions and better working environments with less pressure due to adequate resourcing.'
A previous letter to the Department of Justice from June 2024 said one of the biggest drivers in demand was 'the exponential increase' in cases involving asylum seekers.
It said the introduction of 'accelerated' processes for dealing with applications for international protection had complicated their work.
The correspondence said: 'Early legal advice is key, and this is very challenging with the current service delivery model.'
The board warned the Department of Justice that a shortfall in staff could lead as well to longer stays in international protection for applicants.
'Additionally, it could give rise to costly and lengthy litigation in the superior courts,' they said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
UN court opens the floodgates for poorer nations to sue Britain over contributions to climate change
The UK could be sued over its contribution to climate change after a court ruling that countries are responsible for their emissions. The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK. Despite being advisory, there are fears it could be enshrined in law by Labour, who, under the guidance of Attorney General Lord Hermer, have an 'ideological obsession' with international law, the Tories warned on Wednesday night. Campaigners hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.' Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said. And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'. It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result. Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities. But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation. However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution. Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers. A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.' Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Justice Dept to assess claims of 'alleged weaponization' of US intelligence community
WASHINGTON, July 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice said on Wednesday it was forming a strike force to assess recent claims made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about "alleged weaponization of the U.S. intelligence community." "This Department takes alleged weaponization of the intelligence community with the utmost seriousness," the Justice Department said in a statement.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump was 'told months ago' his name appears in Epstein files multiple times
Attorney General Pam Bondi told the US President his name appears "multiple times" in the "truckload" of documents reviewed by the Department of Justice Donald Trump was informed months ago by Attorney General Pam Bondi that his name appears 'multiple times' in the Jeffrey Epstein files, according to US reports. He was told on the same day she advised against releasing all documents publicly, according to a new report by the Wall Street Journal. Senior administration officials told the Journal that Bondi met with Trump in May and informed him that his name had surfaced more frequently in the materials than previously believed. The president, she allegedly said, was listed among hundreds of high-profile figures in the files connected socially to the late financier and convicted sex offender. The files, officials claimed, contain 'unverified hearsay' about Trump and others who were known to have moved in Epstein's social circles. According to the report, Bondi advised against making the documents public because they included child pornography and the personal information of survivors. During the meeting, Trump reportedly deferred to her on whether further documents should be released. Officials emphasised that the president's name appearing in the files does not imply any wrongdoing or criminal connection to Epstein's sex trafficking network. Administration sources also told the Journal that the May meeting between Trump and Bondi was a routine presidential briefing that touched on a range of matters, and that Epstein was not the main focus. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung dismissed the Journal's reporting, calling it 'fake news' in a statement. Trump is already suing the Journal for defamation over its story claiming Trump sent Epstein a bawdy note to mark his 50th birthday. He angrily denied the story, branding it "fake" and suing the paper's publisher for $10 million. Since then, the White House has been scrambling to move the public conversation away from Epstein and onto other matters. This has led to a flurry of announcements and statements - from releasing documents relating to the Martin Luther King Jr assassination, threatening two American football teams to change their names back to previous versions which contained racial slurs and threatening to charge Barack Obama with treason. 'This is another fake news story, just like the previous story by The Wall Street Journal,' said White House communications director Steven Cheung. Bondi told the WSJ nothing in the files required further investigation. Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! Bondi's deputy, Todd Blanche, yesterday announced he had reached out to Ghislaine Maxwell - Epstein's fixer - to ask her for more information about the dead paedophile and his associates. The decision to withhold the remaining documents has opened a rift in Trump's supporter base, with the many furious at the President's apparent about face on the subject.
