Justice for all !

Wollongong council notes reveal that legal costs have doubled in the past year - and now amount for a whopping three million dollars of ratepayers funds.

The ICAC enquiry must shoulder some of the blame, but legal expenses also applied to land acquisitions, debt recovery, human resources matters - and the prosecution of heritage and environmental breaches.

Pity the poor private individual who becomes embroiled in a legal dispute ! A simple matter such as a neighbourhood dispute can easily run to thousands of dollars - and should a citizen have the misfortune to be accused of a major crime the costs of a defence could wipe out any superannuation, family savings - and equity in the family home.

This is not the way the founding fathers intended. The tenet of democracy is - justice for all. It is not justice if the price is beyond the citizen's ability to pay - and that is where we are at now !

When the state launches a prosecution the citizen finds himself or herself the adversary facing a barrage of highly skilled lawyers - paid from the public purse.
To have any hope of a successful defence there is no option than to field a team of equally skilled lawyers - paid for by the defendant.

An even worse scenario faces those without means. They either represent themselves or the court appoints a " public defender " - a lawyer with little bar experience - usually fresh from legal training school.

The legal arena is one of sharply escalating costs. Apart from lawyers, court fees are rising sharply and we are fast approaching a time when the courts will become a no-go zone for the general public seeking legal redress.

It is time that common sense prevailed. So many legal decisions hinge on the interpretation of some arcane ancient law. Maybe it is time to clear the lawyers from the court system and install a system of one on one. An example:

The accused be called upon to provide a defence with the prosecution presented by a member of the public drawn on the same principle that decides members of a jury.
In that way equality is achieved. Neither are lawyers - and their presentations would be decided by a judge. It would no longer be a defenceless citizen ravaged by a panel of high priced QC's with a superior knowledge of the law.

Of course this will never happen. To do so would require an act of parliament - and the vast majority of parliamentary members were formerly from - the legal profession !