One of the tenets of law in Australia is that an accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Along with that comes the expectation that an accused person will have the assistance of a qualified lawyer in preparing a defence. When a defence lawyer is one appointed by the court it is usually a person at the start of their legal career who lacks the expertise to act effectively against the high profile legal team mounted by the prosecution.
Just such a battle is emerging in a trial in the New South Wales Supreme court. In what is termed " the Family Court bombing case " a man is charged with incidents that occurred between 1980 and 1985 when the Family Court in Parramatta, the Jehovah's Witness Hall in Casula and several judges homes were bombed, causing death and injuries.
Six months into the trial, the accused has asked for the trial to be set aside because he has run out of money to pay his legal council to defend him. His lawyer has ceased acting for him, but has stayed on in a pro bono capacity during the hearing to have the trial stayed.
This lawyer has told the court that defending the trial would be far too complex and resource intensive for the accused to do alone. He has no hope of dealing with it and this is a great outstanding case. There is no case like this in our history.
To complicate the issue, the defendant is married and his wife is the sole owner of the home in which they both lived. His spouse has not agreed to have the home encumbered due to her incapacity to support herself and the dependency of a young child.
In adjourning the trial to hear this weeks stay application the judge said that if the application was rejected the trial would need to resume with the accused not legally represented. Given the circumstances that have been arrived at, it is appropriate that the accused be provided with documents to enable him to prepare for the resumption of his trial on the basis that his application for a temporary stay until alternative legal representation is arranged is unsuccessful, that no alternative funding is made available and no alternative legal representation is made available.
Should the trial proceed with the accused unrepresented the avenues of appeal that would open would be legendary. It could easily end up in the High Court. In fact it breaks new ground given that this is a trial that involves a physical attack that ended in murder on the very institution of law as it applies in Australia.
Perhaps the main hope is that the media appeal of this extraordinary case may convince a leading lawyer to step forward and act in a pro bono capacity to reap the publicity that such an act of charity would generate. Legal practitioners gain fame by appearing in cases which draw strong public interest and there is no doubt that this Family Court bombing will hold media interest.
If nothing else, a threat to stand alone against a bevy of practised prosecutors is a clever defence strategy in its own right.
No comments:
Post a Comment