By Karen Percy.
Melbourne murderer and rapist Adrian Bayley can re-apply for legal aid to assist him in appealing recent rape convictions after a ruling today by Victoria’s Supreme Court.
Justice Kevin Bell ruled a recent decision by Victorian Legal Aid’s independent reviewer to deny Bayley assistance was invalid.
Bayley was already serving a life sentence over the 2012 rape and murder of ABC employee Jill Meagher when his non-parole period was increased from 35 to 43 years in May when he was found guilty of additional rape offences.
He wanted Legal Aid to continue to represent him to appeal those convictions, but it was refused.
Legal Aid represented Bayley in the Jill Meagher case and in the other rape cases, but refused to assist him to appeal those convictions.
Justice Bell said the decision was made despite an acknowledgement by Legal Aid and the independent reviewer, John Nixon, that two of three appeals had a strong case of being successful and could lead to a reduced sentence for Bayley.
“It is not lawful to reject an application for legal assistance, including for legal assistance in relation to a criminal appeal, upon the sole ground that the applicant is a notorious and unpopular individual who has already been convicted of and sentenced for heinous crimes,” Justice Bell said in his 29-page published reasons.
“It has been established that the result of the decision bespeaks error, that the decision lacks an evident and intelligible foundation and that the decision could only have been arbitrary.
“Therefore I infer that the decision was legally unreasonable. It is thereby invalid.”
The court has ordered that a different independent reviewer consider Bayley’s application.
© 2015 Australian Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved. Read the ABC Disclaimer here.
Top Comments
Well, they no longer need to fund the Lindt Cafe terrorist when he appeals to the High Court over the taunting letters he sent to the grieving families of fallen diggers, or to argue for that champion of Australia, David Hicks, or if he prefers, Mohammad Darwood, the name his AlQaeda mates bestowed upon him as a tourist or whatever it was he was doing at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. So sure, why not? Couldn't think of a more worthy recepient...
I'm not sure I am understanding your point. Are you upset that our legal system entitles everyone to defense by a professional?
No, I'm upset that legal aid doesn't have an unlimited budget and I question if they should spend their budget on things the Lindt Cafe terrorists endless legal challenges.
If I cut down a tree on my property without a permit, should I be entitled to legal funding for a high court challenge?
If someone gets caught with heroin strapped to their body trying to fly back to Australia they get a legion of public servants and lawyers working on their behalf, but if you are a needle width over the speed limit, the Man has all the time in the world to nail you.
The bigger the crime, the more public money you get to defend yourself. You are entitled to a defence sure, you aren't entitled to a money is no object defence.