Judge blasts legal aid ‘masquerade’

After delivering scathing criticisms of the Victoria Police and the Legal Services Board, Victoria Supreme Court judge Betty King has directed her ire towards Victoria Legal Aid (VLA).

Stefanie Garber • 30 April 2015 • The Bar

Justice King criticised the public defender for sending junior counsel to court who were unable to represent their client, according to reports by News Ltd.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

During a recent pre-sentencing hearing for convicted murderer Scott Miller, senior VLA lawyer Stephen Payne fainted, forcing the court to adjourn as his junior was unable to proceed.

Justice King told VLA director Tim Marsh it was unacceptable that Mr Payne’s junior counsel could not step in to represent Mr Miller.

"It is a concern of the judges of this court that people who wish to put on the robes of counsel need to be able to undertake the role of counsel. It is not something you can masquerade as," she said.

In particular, she noted that the victim's parents, who had flown in from China for the hearing, would now miss watching Mr Miller's sentencing as the matter could be adjourned for weeks.

VIEW ALL

She claimed Supreme Court judges were becoming increasingly worried about the VLA’s briefing practices and noted she would raise her concerns with Chief Justice Marilyn Warren.

Justice King made headlines for her spirited criticisms of other legal authorities, including the Legal Services Board and Victoria Police, concerning delays caused in the investigation of multi-million dollar fraud by Alan Munt.

In the same case, she took the Law Institute of Victoria to task for its part in the Munt investigation, though acknowledging during sentencing that the LIV was not at fault for the delay.

In response to Justice King’s criticism, a spokesperson for Victoria Legal Aid defended its briefing practices, saying the body had rigorous processes in place.

“It would be unusual and expensive to have two senior public defenders or barristers allocated to a case,” she said.

“Generally the options for representation in a criminal law matter are counsel and instructing solicitor, or two co-counsel (senior and junior barrister).”

Shovel Friday, 08 May 2015

I can only comment on the fields that I practice in. The workload in the DC in Sydney is heavy & unevenly spread between judges. Yes 10 to 4 is attractive but it's pretty intense.The system needs more courts & judges ,a not reached trial in Parra this week gets a new date Feb 2016,offence date 2013. I remember the 80s ,dock statements, civil lists where everything settled, a big brief was a couple of folders. Judges playing golf with 2 pm tee times on a wedsday. I think the point really is that for whatever reason a judge is mad at the world the profession aren't punching bags. When you are dealing with a judge who never practised crime,went to a prison,squeezed into a dog box to get instructions from a difficult client and everything else that goes with it it's an extra brick on the pallet. When Judge starts unloading on somebody they think is some lesser being or they lash out when they get shown up as not up to demands of their $300k + gig then the profession need to returning fire,somehow!

0
Michael Mallal Friday, 08 May 2015

I was subjected to, I believe, a racially motivated rant by a Sydney Magistrate when I appeared in court and my complaint to NSW Judicial Commission was dismissed without reason. I am of part-Pakistani ethnicity, my father being a Middle Templar.

0
Michael Mallal Friday, 08 May 2015

This is terrible and maybe the Discrimination Commissioner can do something about this judge.

0
Michael Mallal Friday, 08 May 2015

How does one sue a judge when they have immunity?

0
Grumpy Thursday, 07 May 2015

Dear Shovel, happy to join as second appointment to the Judicial Banishment Committee. It should be constituted with a reverse onus of proof. Just one comment on your post. Who said the bench is a hard slog compared to life in the real world? I would love to start at 10.00am and finish at 4pm and leave ultimately with a big fat pension. So they write judgments at night and maybe on the weekend. Or their Associates do. Big Deal.

0
Cam Thursday, 07 May 2015

Junior counsel was an in house solicitor into whom VLA was simply trying to install some experience in and expose them to the Supreme Court. VLA actually saved money by having them as junior counsel.

0
Shovel Wednesday, 06 May 2015

Where to you get to "incompetent to speak" from? Unable to proceed is pretty broad .Not a lot of detail to work with in the article,including how junior the barrister was,how much he knew etc.

0
Shovel Wednesday, 06 May 2015

Tell me where to sign up for the banishment committee ! Judicial Commission just counsel them & send them back where they vent their anger at the profession,public ,staff all over again. Then everybody knows who shelved them , they carry massive grudges & desperately try to square up. Not one DC judge has been removed in my memory. 5 magistrates way back in the Wran government years let go & since then they couldn't even get rid of 2 truly notorious magistrates with long rap sheets in the JC before they hit retirement. Its compounded by crap meritless appointments who then take out their frustrations ,generated by their own inadequacies ,on who ever they think can't fight back. The bench is a hard slog,its not the 80s. If the workload is to much because you don't have the skills don't take it out on the profession or unrepresented punters.Get another job.

0
Damien Wednesday, 06 May 2015

If the Junior was too incompetent to speak, then one wonder's whether the VLA's funds were well spent on employing them at all

0
Grumpy Wednesday, 06 May 2015

Hadenough - completely agree with your comments, having myself in my younger years been at the receiving end of totally uncalled for, unnecessary, humiliating Judicial Rants I do just wonder when - one day - a Judge is called properly to account. Being on the bench is not a licence to be inhumane or unnecessarily rude. They are not superior human beings. And they are no longer "entitled". Rude members of the Judiciary are no better than ego driven playground thugs and should be punished accordingly. And banished if need be. Bugger judicial independence.

0