The only constitutional requirement for a Supreme Court justice is that he or she has not yet reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. However, the High Court of Australia Act requires that an appointed judge be a federal, state or territorial court. or have been an Australian lawyer for at least five years. [88] Significant corporate lawsuits tend to be viewed by the courts as the type of case that no one can defend without the assistance of a lawyer. Applying the Dietrich principle, the courts have ruled that persons who need legal counsel for the defence and who do not receive it may request a permanent stay of proceedings against them. [9] In such situations, the law requires us to provide legal advice to such a person to ensure a fair trial. We may apply to recover these costs from confiscated property or to be reimbursed by the state government. 4.25 The Director of the New South Wales Prosecutor`s Office, Nicholas Cowdery, QC, stated in his opinion on the Committee`s inquiry that while there was no legal aid for indigent accused of serious crimes, the bill had been presented in London in 1899 for approval by the British Parliament. If they have been arrested or detained, they should be informed of the reasons. It is important that this information is communicated in a way that they understand. Fair Trials worked with police, lawyers and plain language experts to produce clear texts in several European languages. Some people may need extra help understanding this information, for example through an interpreter or translator.
For an accused to apply for a stay on the basis of Dietrich v. The Queen, the onus is on the applicant to prove that he or she is indigent, charged with a serious crime, and that he or she is unable to obtain counsel through no fault of his or her own. [4]: 385 As noted by counsel for the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions, the Court has never defined the meaning of the term “indigent” or the scope of the terms “serious crime” and “through no fault of his own”. [23]: As a result, 64 courts had difficulty applying the Dietrich test. [2]: 214 In many countries, persons accused of a crime cannot afford or have access to a lawyer. Even in countries that offer free access to lawyers, not everyone has effective legal representation, as insufficient support for legal aid or other forms of free legal advice leads to an overwhelming number of cases and insufficient resources for lawyers to work on each case. It is essential that anyone charged with a crime has access to counsel at all stages of the court process, not just during the process itself. In particular, individuals should be able to obtain assistance from their lawyers immediately after arrest. The case originated in the Victoria County Court, where Olaf Dietrich[5] was convicted by a jury of importing a tradeable quantity of heroin. [4]: 386 Prior to the trial, Dietrich had requested counsel in several ways, all of which were denied. [4]: 386 After the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal refused leave to appeal, the case was brought before the High Court of Australia.
Dietrich`s lawyer appealed on the grounds that Dietrich`s absence of a lawyer meant that the trial in the District Court of Victoria had failed. [4]: 386 At an intercolonial conference in Melbourne in 1870, the idea of an intercolonial tribunal was rejected. A royal commission was established in Victoria to explore options for establishing such a tribunal, and a bill was introduced. However, this bill completely excluded appeals to the Privy Council, provoking a backlash in London that prevented serious attempts to implement the bill by the British Imperial Parliament. [47] 4.14 In assessing a person`s eligibility for legal aid, the funding agency normally applies a means test and a merits test. The first assesses the applicant`s ability to pay or contribute to the costs of legal representation. The latter assesses the merits of the case that the applicant wishes to bring before the court and leads, for example, to a refusal of funding if the chances of success of the case are considered minimal. The use of justified controls is intended to ensure that scarce legal aid funds are used for the most meritorious cases. 4.4 As a result, Dietrich was not represented at his trial in 1988, which lasted about forty days. He was sentenced to seven years` imprisonment on the first and most serious count of importing a quantity of heroin in violation of the Customs Act of 1901 (Cth). The second and third counts were alternatives to the first, so no verdict was required. He was acquitted of count four, which involved possession of heroin.
The High Court`s broad jurisdiction means that it plays an important role in the Australian legal system. [6] 4.13 The Committee was informed that the Dietrich principle had been applied by the defendants in a number of complex and lengthy white-collar criminal proceedings. [8] Mr. Alan Cameron, Chairman of the Australian Securities Commission, noted that there had been particular problems with certain defendants in corporate lawsuits who relied on the stay of Dietrich`s proceedings because they were unable to obtain counsel. Cameron noted: “Dietrich`s lack of legal representation in this case meant that the original trial was unfair. Lack of representation must not render the proceedings unfair if a defendant chooses not to have his or her own legal representation or to refuse legal advice. [23]: 65 It seems to me that the use of the Dietrich Principle is likely to increase much more frequently because of cuts to legal aid, unless a compensatory source of funding is available to offset the Commonwealth cuts.