It happens quite often; the public rallies in unified
indignation about some ostensible shortcoming of the justice
system. It might be the sentence in a case, about which, they
don't know all the facts. It might be a line of questioning. It
might just be the outrage du jour.
The latest we find ourselves on the receiving end of, is the
appeal of the indefinite life sentence handed to Steven Hunter who
was convicted of his second murder. Our firm, including lawyers and
admin staff, is in the direct line of fire on this one for acting
on behalf of the applicant. Personally, I regard anyone who takes
to abusing a young woman on our reception as pretty piss-weak.
We're not strangers to this effect. There are cases you walk
into with your eyes open. You know that you will be abused for
acting for a person. You make a considered and conscious decision
to do so.
Last year we represented Peter Dupas in his matter in the Court
of Appeal. We did not receive public adulation for that one either.
But then, our job is not to get public adulation.
So you're aware, we were approached by other solicitors and
specifically asked to handle both of these cases. Also, in both
cases, it was conveyed the cases had merit and that they should be
run. And likewise, in both cases, legal aid was not willing to fund
them and thus, the client would not have any representation.
We are not getting paid for doing this appeal. We think it is a
matter of principle to have a caseload that includes the unpopular,
the challenging and objectionable.
There is public interest in people appealing. And by
"public interest" I mean the term as one that means
something is of real interest to us all. As a society. Not that we
are interested or appalled by some salacious detail.
Peter Dupas was successful in part in his appeal. It was an
important issue about how evidence could be used in a trial. Trials
happen on a daily basis in Victorian and the law adapts and moves
to accommodate the myriad of issues that arise in cases. This case
law is what keeps our justice system working as smoothly as it
You see, our job is to practice criminal defence law. We work,
like everyone else, for a fee. It is a service that people are
willing to pay us for and in return, the result of our hard work
actually changes people's lives. But sometimes we feel we have
an obligation to do some work for no fee, for the good of the law.
It is not always high profile work but it is always work that we
believe has some merit.
I would be interested to find any other profession or trade that
so willingly provides their time or their service for free. It
might happen occasionally but it does not happen anywhere near as
often as in our profession, nor is it just our firm or just
solicitors it includes all the barristers who do work for free as
well. There are lots of solicitors like Sam Norton who did pro bono
work on the immigration centre charges, barristers like Ashley
Halphen and Julian McMahon who have worked extensively on a pro
bono basis on dealth penalties case. And there are plenty of other
great lawyers who do work on cases that have no media interest.
The nature of criminal defence law is fairly quixotic, we'll
give you that. But with regards to appealing a decision you simply
can not have a rule for one and another for the rest.
Everyone has the right to appeal. This process is a necessary
safeguard in the system.
The law and those rights should apply to anyone in the same way.
Whether it is you or someone who is reviled by the community. They
should have the ability to appeal as much as anyone else.
So just because you are interested in a case does not mean we
have an interest in your view about us.
And if you want to share your views with someone at our firm
about one of our cases, please ask for me.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This was an interlocutory decision about the appointment of a tutor for the child appellant, to carry on his proceedings.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).