Mr. Bernard Joyce:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to highlight issues relating to our community's engagement with the justice system. There are many and very particular barriers for Travellers in accessing legal support and justice. Shortcomings in the civil legal aid scheme limit its scope in terms of providing representation on accommodation, on discrimination under the Equal Status Acts, access to services, housing, education, for social welfare appeals and in employment cases. There are also restrictions in the scheme under section 28 of the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 where someone is served with an eviction notice. Travellers also have significant difficulties in accessing private legal services such as those provided by solicitors because of the enormous costs involved. Furthermore, solicitors are often biased or prejudiced towards the community and have been found wanting in this area. There is a lack of cultural competency within the service and many are not familiar with specialised equality cases involving Travellers.

There is no specialised Traveller law centre in Ireland and no collective data set to work from. Therefore, the extent of Traveller’s legal needs are systemically undermined. The role in representation before the courts and tribunals played by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, and more recently by the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, Traveller legal service and independent law centres, is critical but inadequate relative to the demand. There is need for a State supported independent law centre for Travellers. This is supported by the Council of Europe which, in 2017, made four overarching recommendations to member states under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights given Traveller and Roma's distinct and intersectional need for access to justice across the European Union.

The Irish Traveller Movement has long reported concerns regarding a review of hate crime legislation and we welcome the work in this area. We also endorse the campaign for a review of the Equal Status Act, given the context outlined here. We want to draw the committee’s attention to some very notable barriers for Travellers in legal instruments, namely the Intoxicating Liquor Acts 2003 to 2008, the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 and the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992. We have called for review of Section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. Cases against licensed premises were diverted to the District Court from the Equality Tribunal which has had a significant impact on Travellers who had referred most of those complaints. Since then, there as been a significant reduction in complaints taken. Court records show that in 2016, 26 out of 28 applications to the District Court under Section 19 were lodged by Travellers, with 27 out of 28 of being struck out, withdrawn or adjourned while in 2017, of the 51 out of 52 cases taken by Travellers, 50 were struck off, withdrawn or adjourned. In noting this alarming decrease, the Advisory Committee to the Framework Convention on National Minorities, in 2018, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in 2019, called on the State to change the existing procedure before the District Court or to provide an alternative mechanism so that victims of discrimination have the same procedural guarantees as those of an anti-discrimination body.

For discrimination cases at the point of entry taken to the Work Place Relations Commission, WRC, the burden of proof is too gruelling for Travellers. Given that discrimination is so widespread, it is almost impossible to give practical effect or remedy where immediate redress is required. For example, venues cancelling for special occasions like weddings, christenings or communions at the last minute causes a financial burden and emotional upheaval but is so frequent that Travellers no longer report or take cases. The system itself is such that it acts as a disincentive to taking equality cases. Additionally-----