Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
A Victorian law firm has publicly challenged Victoria Legal Aid’s funding policy for criminal mention hearings, releasing an open letter that claims the policy is “unlawful” and undermines the proper administration of justice.
Last week, Bayside Solicitors released an open letter addressed to the Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) chair Bill Jaboor and members of the compliance audit team, expressing serious concerns about VLA’s new “unpublished policy” to cease funding for mention hearings in criminal matters.
The open letter, which was also copied to Attorney-General, the Honourable Sonya Kilkenny, and the Chief Magistrate, the Honourable Justice Lisa Hannan, contends that the policy contravenes fundamental principles of administrative law and threatens to erode the integrity of Victoria’s criminal justice system.
Bayside Solicitors’ letter was sparked in response to a compliance audit, in which VLA sought to recover fees of $553 or less from the Victorian-based law firm for court appearances at mention hearings.
While VLA maintains that such appearances do not warrant funding, Bayside Solicitors contends that these hearings are a vital component of the court process – particularly for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Ashley Tickner, director of Bayside Solicitors and a senior criminal lawyer, emphasised the firm’s longstanding commitment to providing community support through VLA-funded legal services.
However, he expressed that this commitment is now under threat, stating: “We have now reached a point where VLA’s policies are so restrictive that we feel our ability to comply with ethical obligations to the court and clients is being severely compromised.”
Associate criminal lawyer, Brett Halliwell, argued that the policy rests on a flawed assumption that mention hearings are unnecessary. He argued that, in fact, they are crucial to managing some of “the most complex” matters often involving clients who are facing “multiple police matters, mental health issues, clients being previous victims of abuse, and significant criminal histories”.
“In dealing with a high-volume VLA case load necessitating near daily court appearances, VLA’s policy prohibiting funding for mention hearings places a considerable barrier to fulfilling ethical obligations to the court and clients, because I am unreasonably constrained in how I can run matters before the court,” Halliwell said.
Tickner described the financial strain of the current funding model, explaining that “a multi-matter VLA file finalised with preparation and a single appearance for plea generates us a total fee of $1,130, including GST”.
He went on: “By denying payment for mention hearings, VLA seeks to cap its outlay to $1,130, even where the panel lawyer’s work effort might exceed 20 hours.”
“The economics of VLA work are becoming increasingly unviable, and we believe this will cause an exodus from the panel. Such an outcome could have tragic consequences for the community and the administration of justice. We believe the VLA private practitioner model is at risk of potential collapse, and VLA-employed duty lawyers are already significantly overloaded,” Tickner stressed.
In response to questioning from Lawyers Weekly, a spokesperson for VLA said that the legal body “appreciates the valuable work that panel practitioners across the state do on behalf of legal aid clients”.
The spokesperson also noted that VLA “will continue to engage directly with Bayside Solicitors about the results of their recent quality assurance reviews”.
We're evolving — and so should your insights. Heads up — Lawyers Weekly is going premium from 1 May for just $5 a month. Stay informed without missing a beat. More information coming soon.
Get breaking news
Grace Robbie
