Legal Aid

Earlier in the week the Australian Government offered Schapelle Corby two QCs to assist in her appeal
Today I hear on the ABC news that the Bali 9 have applied for legal aid

I have heard in the past of Prisoners being charged with another offence commited while in goal being granted legal aid

I am not against legal aid i'm sure there are thousand's of cases where it was justified.

My question is "Just who is entieled for legal aid what are the restrictions ?"
Could an Australian backpacker in England charged with a parking offence apply.
Does the crime have to be of a serious enough nature, is it means tested etc



The trouble with life is there's no background music.

To get legal aid in Australia, you cannot have much in the way of assets. Middle Australia need not apply. Most lowlifes (career criminals) have no problem getting legal aid.

Its doubtful whether you would get one QC for a drugs matter. Murder, manslaughter, yes probably.

The crime does not need to be overly serious to get legal aid and the representation you get is in line with the crime as I stated above.

The daily rates for legal aid are heavily discounted and many lawyers will not work under this arrangement.

I didn't know that it was available overseas, this must be a federal scheme Im unaware of.

What Corby is being offered is not legal aid as far as I can tell. A special arrangement that sets a dangerous precedent.

All persons are created equal, its just that some are more equal than others

I don't know which report is true, but last night the ABC was reporting that the QC's were offering to do it Pro Bono (ie for free).

Actually it had one of them on camera saying that they had first offered this to her "team" in March but had had no reply from them. :confused:

My ex owns a business. Her new partner is in the business with her. She has my house and all my money. She's trying to stop me from seeing my daughter (despite my having the girl half time now), has already grabbed my daughter and refused contact for over a month necessitating a court fight to regain contact, and her offer for financial settlement is less than half the equity I had in my house when I first met her, let alone the rest of our considerable assets at the time of separation. Currently, I'm on a pension, am renting and have to finance a car loan that is worth much more than the probable sale value of that car. To fight her, I need a lawyer. That lawyer will wait till the financial settlement for her money, but all other expenses, including the barristers I need to represent me in court, must come out of my pocket. If she wishes to fight this through the courts, which she has already stated she is, she can afford to do so because she has all the resources of her business behind her. I can not.

I can't get legal aid because I will eventually get some sort of settlement, not even to cover any costs now with repayment later. Apparently this is fair.

Richard

That sucks Richard! :mad: :mad: Why is it always the man who comes off second best in these situations? No wonder you're a grumpy old bugga! ;) They say every cloud has a silver lining ... and I hope something good comes your way some day.

Cheers
Tikki :)

Richard Richard Richard, been there, done that, and hope never to walk that path again.
This was raised by Brudda few weeks ago who was having a similar problem.
I stated then with the Family Law Court, this ordeal is comparable to a gold mine, she gets the gold, you get the shaft (no smilie, it's not funny, just true).
On the other hand, a friend of mine is now nearing the end of his maintainance period, his ex called him saying that the son is now an apprentice and needs $3000.00 worth of tools, his response was that he pays weekly and it is for supporting his son.
She wants to take him back to court but has been advised that what he said stands.
She has been using the money to pay off her car and she may now lose it.
Oh dear ;)
I know it's a rough patch but it WILL improve, trust me, I'm back on my feet and going OK, you will too but probably won't believe this for a few months.

Thanks for Iain and Tikki. It's not a major stressor for me, just something to get grumpy about when I'm in the mood. :o

Cheers
Richard

Wheres Zed when hes needed, ohh well its like its up to me.

Kumbah my lord kumbah.......:o

Al

Anahantas..thanks alot for your well thought out contribution to the discussion. I must say Im impressed with the time you've obviously spent researching the facts behind the case...

There are however a few holes in your arguments....as craigb points out, the QC's are not being paid for by the Australian tax payer, they have offered their services free.

I adhere to the quaint old fashioned idea that someone is innocent untill proven guilty...Im going to wait untill the appeal is over before I pass final judgement on Chapelle Corby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anahatas

i would want that son of a b*tch die she deserves nothing but **** becasue thats what she is, and iam glad howard refused to help scum

cheers.....

---

Im not going to make any guilty or not guilty judgemnet here but i would like to point out that anahatas's research is obviously flawed. shappelle might be the daughter of a ***** but certainly can not be the son of one, at least without an operation. think before you posthttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon10.gif

anhantas (or however it spells its name) - pull your head in.... actually it doesnt matter - rant away - the moderators will delete your vilifying post and hopefully ban you.

how can you say what you did ? wheres your proof ? do you come from some fundamentalist society where people are guilty and women are just animals ? or do you have a back door to the facts that the rest of Oz doesnt know about. please share rather than the gutter talk so far.

I thought she had had her trial and was found guilty, therefore, until she has a successful appeal then she is guilty. As a convicted criminal then she is getting her just desserts and should do so until she makes a successful appeal, and if she is unsuccessful then she should stay in the slammer till she is as ugly as her mother!

Oh, yes, I forgot, Anahatarse, go away and don't come back you foul twit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rufus Gutz

I thought she had had her trial and was found guilty, therefore, until she has a successful appeal then she is guilty. As a convicted criminal then she is getting her just desserts and should do so until she makes a successful appeal, and if she is unsuccessful then she should stay in the slammer till she is as ugly as her mother!

---

Rufus youre probably technically correct there but ....I take the view that if there's an appeal process then guilt is not fully proven untill the case has been through an appeal.