Australia Legal Aid

There is often unfair advantages in the trial process as not all members of society have the same access to legal representatives or availability of

In the 21st Century many things have been called into question. Among those things is the adversarial system that Australia’s Rule of Law system follows. The argument stands that the adversarial system is too aggressive in its approach to the legal system. Would Australia benefit more from the adversarial system changing into the inquisitorial system or would it be more beneficial to create a hybrid of the two. This essay will aim to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both the current system of adversarial and the more European system of inquisitorial. Highlighting why it is important to begin moving away from a traditional adversarial system drawing evidence from the Family court of Australia, the Netherlands and Nigeria’s current

Mirko Bagaric and Penny Dimopoulos argue that the introduction of mandatory pro bono will only encourage the government to continue to decrease it’s funding of legal aid services as the government will further shirk the responsibility onto the legal profession. For example, the current Australian budget has proposed yet another large decrease in government funding for 2017-2018, this includes the quarantining of some of the community legal centre funding. Furthermore, it is not fair of the government to place an expectation on the legal to perform legal services for free when there is no similar altruistic expectation placed on professional from other areas, such as: physiotherapists, chiropractors, doctors and psychologists. All the services provided by these other professions for “free” or at a discount are usually done so because the costs are then subsidized by the government. The introduction of mandatory pro bono should not be seen as a means for the government to avoid their responsibility to the legal community, instead if it is to be introduce it would need to be followed by the agreement of the government to provide more funding to legal

This has come from the Australian community and international human rights monitors who have stated that “There are still areas in which the domestic legal system does not provide an effective remedy to persons whose rights under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] have been violated … [Australia] should take measures to give effect to all Covenant rights and freedoms.” There hasn’t only been a recent push for a Bill of Rights, Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason wrote in 1997 that “Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state”. Brian Galligan who is an academic expert on citizenship stated that “the old confidence in the effectiveness of parliamentary responsible government and the common law for protecting human rights has been undermined by more realistic accounts of the weakness of parliament and the increasingly residual domain of common law compared with the plethora of statutory laws.” The answer to whether Australia needs to adopt a Bill of Rights in order to protect Australian citizens is simple… yes and

More than ever people are losing access to justice. Even though the global economic crisis affected everyone, and every jurisdictions budget there needs to be a minimum level of funding for legal aid to protect the rights of those that cannot afford legal aid (Hainsworth, 2010). According to Hainsworth, (2010) the Canadian Bar Association has asked for national standards for legal aid, just like there are standards for health care and education. The CBA believes legal aid reform is needed to ensure access to justice for low income people, it also believes funding must be increased and national standards for eligibility and civil coverage are necessary to make the system function properly again.

The level of court the case is heard in is the NSW district court. As shown in the case “The case returned to court and the Palmers sought a lump sum costs order of $14,721, but District Court judge Judith Gibson refused.

     However, Sutherland said that the Court was not deciding whether poor defendants had a right to free counsel in all situations, beyond the aggravated ones of this case: a capital charge, tried in haste and under public pressure.

The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law

Australia 's Federal System is dynamic and the division of lawmaking power between the Commonwealth and State since 1901 has changed dramatically; Critically discuss, focussing on the major reasons for those changes.

265. 2014). This is because there are differing views on the relationships between wealth, inequality and disorder and on how people of different classes are judged. Certain groups within society have the power to define what is order and disorder, whilst the vast majority do not. Consequently, as Harvard and Clarke state ‘There are numerous examples of distinctions made between similar behaviours all judged differently depending on social identities’ (Harvard C & Clarke Pg. 265. 2014). Therefore, according to Patrick Allen of Hodge, Jones & Allen Solicitors, (Bowcott,O. 2015) “It comes as no surprise that those in the lowest income bracket have the least trust in a legal system that appears unfair, confusing and inaccessible’, in contrast to the wealthy who have no difficulties in paying for such access. Thus, indicating that the poor and middle classes have little or no chance of having ‘equality before the law’. Thus, Inequalities in law persist, only changing slowly over time. However, laws are never static, always changing but not always for the betterment of

The perception of the Australian criminal justice system’s legitimacy is determined by the actions of three institutions, and the manner in which they address issues of justice within society. For the criminal justice system to be seen with integrity and valued for its role, it is vital that all members of the community see the appropriate rectification of injustices through the police, courts and corrections. However, particular groups within society encounter the illegitimacy and social inequity embedded within these institutions, diminishing the effectiveness to which they fulfill their role. For women in particular, the institutions of the criminal justice system are notably unethical in their treatment of both victims and perpetrators of crime. Despite many reforms and recommendations for change, the criminal justice system ultimately fails in achieving justice for women, with the courts demonstrating the most significant attempt to eliminate social inequality and victimisation.

It is widely recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of significant reform, if the nation’s present and future need for fair justice is to be met.

Is our NSW court system effective? It is if you have money. Is it something that we can just adhere to with out ever allowing it to adapt and evolve to meet societies needs? Absolutely not. Just like humanity, the NSW court system contains protruding faults that are made apparent with further scrutiny. The court system is something that requires our constant attention and support to improve and advance. In order for the court system to attain eligibility it relies heavily on 4 fundamental components; affordability, simplicity, fairness and accessibility. For countless Australians our legal system is lacking on all these fronts.

In the 6th century, the trial or ordeal began, later in the 11th century the common law developed in England and the Normans evaded England. The common law system was brought over to Australia in the year 1788. The courts of Equity were developed due to the common law courts are ‘unjust’. These courts introduced fairness into our common law system.

The concept of ‘access to justice’ is primarily reliant on liberal ideology. Liberalism is at the heart of the Australian legal system, with particular emphasis placed upon notions of liberty, justice, equality and individual rights. This is further evidenced by the fact, that the right to one’s day in court i.e. to participate in legal process, has become almost synonymous with ‘access to justice’. Nonetheless, despite formally guaranteed rules of standing and procedure, neoliberal forces will often prevent the most disadvantaged and marginalised citizens from gaining equal access to the legal system.