Law in the Modern Times
Dietrich v The Queen
Argued that there is immunity from conviction unless such a person in provided with counsel at the public expense.
Mason C.J. and Brenan J.
“The applicant is entitled to succeed because his trial miscarried by virtue of the judge’s failure to stay or adjourn the trial until arrangements were made for counsel to appear the public expense… he was deprived of his right to a fair trial.”
“Indeed, where there is no legal representation, and save in the exceptional case of the skilled litigant, the adversary system, whether or not it remains in theory, in practise breaks down..” - Lord Devlin.
There is an argued analogy with the United States Constitution, however as it is based on their Constitution it has no parallel in Australian law.
Could create difficulties - eg. Accused could demand counsel of a particular degree, skill or experience.
Lack of representation may mean that an accused is unable to receive, or not receive a far trial.
Brennan J.
Whilst dissenting, Brennan acknowledges: “The entitlement of a person charged with a serious offence to be represented by counsel at public expense would be an important safeguard of fairness in the administration of criminal justice. Argues that our common law is different to other common law countries that have a Bill of Rights.
“In the present case, there is no constitutional or statutory provision which supports the applicant’s case.”
“Every right or title must be enforced or administered in some form.”
Deane J.
“The entitlement of an accused person to a fair trial according to law is recognised as the central thesis of the administration of criminal justice.”
“A practice cannot be reconciled with ‘common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right’ which subjects innocent men t increased dangers of conviction merely because of their poverty.”
However, viewed in the context of the overall trial, impropriety or unfairness could not have infected
Argued that there is immunity from conviction unless such a person in provided with counsel at the public expense.
Mason C.J. and Brenan J.
“The applicant is entitled to succeed because his trial miscarried by virtue of the judge’s failure to stay or adjourn the trial until arrangements were made for counsel to appear the public expense… he was deprived of his right to a fair trial.”
“Indeed, where there is no legal representation, and save in the exceptional case of the skilled litigant, the adversary system, whether or not it remains in theory, in practise breaks down..” - Lord Devlin.
There is an argued analogy with the United States Constitution, however as it is based on their Constitution it has no parallel in Australian law.
Could create difficulties - eg. Accused could demand counsel of a particular degree, skill or experience.
Lack of representation may mean that an accused is unable to receive, or not receive a far trial.
Brennan J.
Whilst dissenting, Brennan acknowledges: “The entitlement of a person charged with a serious offence to be represented by counsel at public expense would be an important safeguard of fairness in the administration of criminal justice. Argues that our common law is different to other common law countries that have a Bill of Rights.
“In the present case, there is no constitutional or statutory provision which supports the applicant’s case.”
“Every right or title must be enforced or administered in some form.”
Deane J.
“The entitlement of an accused person to a fair trial according to law is recognised as the central thesis of the administration of criminal justice.”
“A practice cannot be reconciled with ‘common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right’ which subjects innocent men t increased dangers of conviction merely because of their poverty.”
However, viewed in the context of the overall trial, impropriety or unfairness could not have infected