I'll post the court link once available.........in the meantime......


http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/supreme-court-rules-for-adrian-bayley-on-legal-aid-20151218-

The only further expense that we need to expend on bailey is about five dollars which is about the cost of some kerosene and a lighter.

http://scv2.webcentral.com.au/judgments/pdfs/T0744.pdf#page=1&navpanes=0&toolbar=1&scrollbar=1&pagemode=none


Having now read this document, it's lengthy and imo, unlikely to generate much interest here.

Is there a way I can delete my own topic??????? Anyone????

innocentbystander. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:

The only further expense that we need to expend on bailey is about five dollars which is about the cost of some kerosene and a lighter.

nah, one dollar for a bullet.

Alinta wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

http://scv2.webcentral.com.au/judgments/pdfs/T0744.pdf#page=1&navpanes=0&toolbar=1&scrollbar=1&pagemode=none Having now read this document, it's lengthy and imo, unlikely to generate much interest here. Is there a way I can delete my own topic??????? Anyone????

Have the thread moved to 'Relationships', then abuse Aussie. Problem solved..

Alinta wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

http://scv2.webcentral.com.au/judgments/pdfs/T0744.pdf#page=1&navpanes=0&toolbar=1&scrollbar=1&pagemode=none Having now read this document, it's lengthy and imo, unlikely to generate much interest here. Is there a way I can delete my own topic??????? Anyone????

How about a nut-shell precis' of the decision?

Alinta wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

Is there a way I can delete my own topic???????

No.

Aussie wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Alinta wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 12:44pm: http://scv2.webcentral.com.au/judgments/pdfs/T0744.pdf#page=1&navpanes=0&toolbar=1&scrollbar=1&pagemode=none Having now read this document, it's lengthy and imo, unlikely to generate much interest here. Is there a way I can delete my own topic??????? Anyone???? How about a nut-shell precis' of the decision?

Reckon the first link I posted does this pretty well Aussie........there's quite a few hits on the topic so I'm guessing there's initial interest.
It probably subsides pretty quickly once readers discover the bottom line.....today's decision is not a definite yes or no to the granting of Legal Aid.

Alinta wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 1:40pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 12:44pm: http://scv2.webcentral.com.au/judgments/pdfs/T0744.pdf#page=1&navpanes=0&toolbar=1&scrollbar=1&pagemode=none Having now read this document, it's lengthy and imo, unlikely to generate much interest here. Is there a way I can delete my own topic??????? Anyone???? How about a nut-shell precis' of the decision? Reckon the first link I posted does this pretty well Aussie........there's quite a few hits on the topic so I'm guessing there's initial interest. It probably subsides pretty quickly once readers discover the bottom line.....today's decision is not a definite yes or no to Legal Aid.

True but I'll bet the decision (which I have not read) lays some pretty clear ground rules for the next legal aid review.

innocentbystander. wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:

The only further expense that we need to expend on bailey is about five dollars which is about the cost of some kerosene and a lighter.

we could make it a bonfire and cracker night

I'm sure we could all pull out a name that deserves nothing less than to be torched..

Aussie wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

Alinta wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:32pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 1:40pm: Alinta wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 12:44pm: http://scv2.webcentral.com.au/judgments/pdfs/T0744.pdf#page=1&navpanes=0&toolbar=1&scrollbar=1&pagemode=none Having now read this document, it's lengthy and imo, unlikely to generate much interest here. Is there a way I can delete my own topic??????? Anyone???? How about a nut-shell precis' of the decision? Reckon the first link I posted does this pretty well Aussie........there's quite a few hits on the topic so I'm guessing there's initial interest. It probably subsides pretty quickly once readers discover the bottom line.....today's decision is not a definite yes or no to Legal Aid. True but I'll bet the decision (which I have not read) lays some pretty clear ground rules for the next legal aid review.

Yeah, lots of case law and legislation citations that cover "arbitrary" ......in lay persons terms, a decision for refusal based on Bayley's  record of heinous crimes and unpopularity doesn't cut it with the court.

Legal Aid is generally only provided sufficient to get the defendant convicted and LA lawyers try for a guilty plea as the easiest way out without having to work.

It is therefore neither legal nor aid in any meaningful sense, and was only increased in funding here in NSW to defeat the Deitrich Decision, which stipulates that where legal assistance was not forthcoming for the original hearing, all charges are placed on permanent hold.  Thus, in NSW, every defendant will receive sufficient 'legal aid' to ensure he has no loop-hole, while  the State provides insufficient 'legal aid' to provide any meaningful defence.

The whole thing falls down when a 'defence lawyer' does nothing to assist the defence of his client, and simply says - "I'm paid to work for you IN court - not outside it"!!!!!!!!

HTS a lawyer can mount any defence without working outside the court is beyond me.

ADDITION:-  Only the REAL criminals get legal aid to the max with barristers and SCs and such - which raises the question - why are the others in court at all?

Answer?  Mostly for nothing at all......... now ask me again about the abuse to which law and courts have been put in this country for over two hundred years.....

Alinta wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:56pm:

in lay persons terms, a decision for refusal based on Bayley's  record of heinous crimes and unpopularity doesn't cut it with the court.

I'm sure there will be outrage from the tabloid media about this but I think the correct decision has been made.

You can't deny someone the due process of law simply because you don't like them. Justice is not a popularity contest.

Here's the only legal aid he should get:


http://rollingout.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/noose1.jpg