Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Savings for justice

By Evan Whitton - posted Wednesday, 4 December 2013


At Simpson's trial in March 2005, his legal aid lawyer, Joanne Harris, adhered to the ethics; she persuaded the judge, Anthony Whealy, to conceal his suicide attempt because it might cause him "unfair prejudice". The director of public prosecutions (DPP), Nicholas Cowdery, decided not to proceed. Simpson walked.

A glimpse of what legal aid lawyers may get emerged in an article by Richard Ackland in The Sydney Morning Herald of 29 November 2013. He said it was estimated that legal aid costs for a four-week murder trial would be $280,000.

That is $14,000 a day to be whacked up between, say, a barrister and an instructing solicitor. That may explain why legal aid costs taxpayers two or three times as much as the office of the DPP.

Advertisement

Tony Koch reported in The Australian (17 May, 2008) that the Queensland DPP got about $30 million a year from state and federal sources to try to put criminals in prison; legal aid lawyers got $101 million a year to try to keep them out.

In New South Wales, the DPP's budget for 2007-08 was $96 million; the legal aid budget was $214 million. In 2009, DPP Cowdery was obliged to drop some prosecutions, and could not provide lawyers for some courts.

As for possible civil legal aid, a couple of points can be made.

George Brandis is said to believe that aspects of the Racial Discrimination Act are an unwarranted restriction on "free" speech. If he believes that, he will remove the bias in libel law which restricts free speech in the media and elsewhere.

The bias comes from a string of false presumptions, including a presumption of guilt for defendants, which pervert justice, and make it fairly easy for scoundrels to win libel actions. After US judges removed the bias in 1964, there were half as many libel actions in the entire United States as there were in Sydney.

Civil legal aid would probably swamp the courts and taxpayers. Perhaps school children could use it to sue Education Minister Pyne and Prime Minister Abbott for going back on their promise to adhere to the Gonski education reforms.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Evan Whitton is a former reporter who became a legal historian after seeing how two systems dealt with the same criminal, Queensland police chief Sir (as he then was) Terry Lewis.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Evan Whitton

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy