Page 2948 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, Mr Connolly interjected, "I will give the real facts of the matter". I think, Madam Speaker, that I have been taking great care not to present the facts of this matter in this house, with due deference to the Supreme Court. It seems to me that, without my trying to present one side, it is inappropriate that Mr Connolly should do so.
Mr Connolly: You have raised a slur that we have done something wrong.
MR MOORE: Mr Connolly interjects again, Madam Speaker, that I have raised a slur that he has done something wrong. I want to clarify that. In no way have I raised a slur. If I could have Mr Connolly's attention, I would appreciate it. The only point to be made here is that somebody applied for legal aid, as an unemployed child-care worker, and was not able to get it. That is the important issue. The facts of the matter and the charge, I think, are irrelevant in this case. I hope that Mr Connolly will take that into account. Normally he does, so I will accept that.
This person claims, and he also claims he has witnesses, that he is not guilty as charged. I think that is the important issue, because that is why somebody goes for legal aid on many occasions. His guilt or his innocence is not the issue here. That is for the court to decide. I think that is the point that we agree that we are not going to debate.
Mr Connolly: You acknowledge that he has chosen to go to the Supreme Court. You know that he could have had the matter dealt with in the Magistrates Court.
MR MOORE: The issue is that he is one of an increasing number of people in our community who are forced to go into a court with absolutely - - -
Mr Connolly: No; he has chosen to go to the Supreme Court.
MR MOORE: With absolutely no assistance or representation, because they do not have the means to engage a lawyer and the Legal Aid Commission has not the resources to provide representation. Mr Connolly interjects that it is his choice to go to the Supreme Court. We have a court system with a range of levels. Any member of the public should be able to feel that they have access to whatever court will protect their innocence.
The case raises alarm bells about a fundamental premise of our justice system - that we should all be entitled to legal representation in our courts. It is also highlighted that this is not an isolated case. People as young as 17 years of age have appeared in our courts recently, vigorously attempting to defend actions, with no idea at all of court procedure and the law. They are, in some ways, at the mercy of legally trained personnel, with absolutely no working knowledge of how to save themselves. Never mind whether they are innocent or guilty; that has become secondary to the fact that their case will not be argued at all. At this point it is worth noting the attitude of the judiciary. I have been in court and watched people who are not represented and the care with which judges deal with them. At no stage am I impugning in any way either the magistrates or the judges; in fact, rather the opposite. There is no doubt about the care that they take with people who are not represented.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .