This
case was no Lindy chamberlain. The facts were not contested, there were no gaps
in the prosecution case, and the sentence handed down to Mr Bayley was entirely
within the judge’s discretion, and entirely appropriate for a man convicted of
rape and murder who is in fact a repeat offender.
Of
course Mr Bayley, like all defendants, is entitled to a fair trial and legal representation.
But legal aid funds are too precious to go on unmeritorious appeals against
sentence by convicted killers who have appropriately received lengthy sentences
and are simply trying it on.
I
regularly have constituents who contact me because they cannot afford the legal
representation they need in order to get access to justice. Just yesterday I
visited a pensioner constituent whose roof is leaking due to a faulty solar
panel installation and who cannot afford the cost of an appeal to the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal to seek redress.
Legal
aid money should go where it will do some genuine good.
I really disagree with an elected representative commenting on the actions of Legal Aid. They have methods for deciding case and fund allocation that should always remain separate from political pressure. The Bayley case was obviously horrifying but it's not your place to throw Legal Aid under the bus for defending a man. They don't always get to help the good guys and frankly it'd be absurd to follow that guiding light.
ReplyDeleteI have faith in their internal processes for fund allocation. If you have constituents who are questioning that, I'd recommend you first ask Legal Aid to outline those procedures and reasonings to you before publicly slamming them.