Thursday 7 August 1997

In 1992 the High Court heard the appeal of Olaf Dietrich, an indigent defendant charged with importing heroin, whose request for an adjournment due to lack of funds for legal representation had been refused by the trial judge. The High Court affirmed the principle that where a defendant charged with a serious criminal offence is unrepresented, the trial judge should grant a stay or adjournment. The Court also explicitly stated that there was no right to legal representation at public expense. The issue for the court was whether an absence of representation precluded a fair trial. The speakers at the seminar considered the implications of the Dietrich judgment and the questions and challenges surrounding legal aid today.

Chair
The Honourable A M Gleeson, AC
Chief Justice of New South Wales

Speakers

Mr Nick Cowdery, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, NSW

Reverend Harry Herbert, Board for Social Responsibility, Uniting Church
Part-time Commissioner of the NSW Legal Aid Commission

Dr Greg Woods, QC, Barrister, Trust Chambers

Mr Mark Richardson, Chief Executive, NSW Law Society

Mr Nick Cowdery, QC, "Why Should the Prosecution Worry?"
"The universally declared rights of equality before the law and fair treatment at its hands cannot be enjoyed universally in our system of justice unless those who guarantee the rights provide the means of their enforcement to those who cannot otherwise afford it. If that is not done there are significant adverse consequences for all participants in the criminal justice process and for the community at large. The prosecution does worry -- and for sound practical and philosophical reasons. Many would argue, however, that such concern for criminals is misplaced and that the money would be better spent elsewhere."

Reverend Harry Herbert, "Legal Aid from a Part-time Commissioner's Perspective
"Now that the Merger Agreement between Federal and State Governments has gone, what is the future for legal aid? The Commonwealth keeps insisting that it wants to spread legal aid more widely ... are they serious? What is the real story about legal aid services in NSW? ... Because legal aid is a so-called 'safety net' welfare service, the great majority of Australians have no interest in preserving it. Can legal aid be re-packaged as a right? Or can we only sell it as a bare necessity because without it criminals will walk free because of Dietrich?"

Mr Mark Richardson, "A Background to the Current Legal Aid Funding Issue"
" In the late 1980s and early 1990s ongoing pressures were placed on Legal Aid Commission budgets. The Commission was required, along with other Government agencies, to do more with less funds ... Reductions in the availability of legal aid for family and civil law attracted comment from the previous Federal Government especially as there was at the same time an increase in the level of legal aid granted under the criminal law program. This problem was also referred to in the Access to Justice Report and was probably the genesis of the argument that Commonwealth monies should be spent only on Federal cases rather than on subsidising State cases."