Distracting the public at all costs is the key to the activities. An absurd waste of Australian dollars. Anyone of importance from Hitler down are long since dead. A boy in uniform is not a leader or a war criminal.The Japanese beat their own to death if they showed any mercy for captives for example. Do or die, it was as simple as that.
But what is the purpose of this. Whilst the Governments are keeping you busy with immaterial events, they are sneaking legislation through Parliament without even a wisper of opposition. The Queensland Labour Government allows conviction without witness or corroboration of any kind, it makes it look to a gullible public that they are doing a great job. Welford stuffed up as Attorney General and got moved to the right as Education Minister. Years later the wrongs can not be fixed simply because the Government doesn't have to answer to the people particularly when it's stupidity is affecting only a few people comparatively. Assistance on State matters by Federal Legislation does not exist unless it is water and highly visible to the public and under media scrutiny. Justice at all costs is simply a means to keep a government in power by distracting the public with emotive events that add glory to a failing and inadequate leadership.I have said it before and I will say it again, Beattie got out whilst the going was in his favour. The answer to all this is a judicary not unlike our northern neighbours where decisions are made by men of justice and knowlege not by emotive and off the street jurors. Peers is a word that justifies the use of cheap and unskilled persons to do the job of educated and unemotional experts. Consider the recent Corby Circus. Wake up Australia, our leaders are catering to their ego, not your better way of life.

I'm not sure angryant 47 that your assertions proveyour conclusions much less that either is really relevant to the issue being raised in the article.
As to the Author of the article's proposition I see his point that the specific case of Mr Zentai is on the surface appears one bridge too far but to extrapolate that further particularly on the grounds of cost devalues justice even more. I find the whole idea of justice being $ sensitive and therefore merely a purchasable comodity repugnant.
The logical next step is that if you've got enough money you can avoid justice altogether. The problem is, as I see it where do you draw the line. One of the cases mentioned involved a number of now Australian citizens many still living.
The fault is not with the cost but that with the Australian Govt that turned a blind eye to "too hard" case for too long. The case of the Latvian was known 30 years earlier but Australia Governments didn't have the mechanism or will do do anything about it. Logically the fault isn't with the law or the cost but with Government interests. We should have war crimes laws and the mean to prosecute always available.

The author seems to be suggesting that there should be a Statute of Limitations on murder and other war crimes. He seems also to be suggesting that cost be allowed to continue to influence justice. At present it does, which is most unfortunate, but shouldn't that simply prompt the public to look at these factors in an effort to overcome the lopsided outcomes?

I am most definite that war crimes committed by overseas people in overseas countries should be treated differently.Very plainly all costs should be met by the country or persons seeking punishment. Justice will continue to be "lopsided" whilst ever justice is sought by using slim evidence and decades old memories. Thought for the man on the bench is necessary too, he has to make a decision based on little evidence and then live with his decision one way or the other.My father a 2nd World War Digger hated the Japanese till his dying day. My father in law was a prisoner on the Kwai Railway and his hate was unprintable. I am well aware and forever conscious of war crimes. The crimes of the Japanese were dealt with expeditiously after the war.I am a Vietnam Veteran and a regular serviceman,not conscripted. I have met people who have had to use Legal Aid. The quality of service offered to these people is dollar based and dictated by the government.False allegations seem to be putting a lot of older and poor people before the courts. I say we should provide better service for our own before we worry about the distant past in distant countries. An important consideration before starting any litigation is, if there is a reason for it beyond vindictive and monetary gains. You may well be surprised just how many times there is not!
Angryant47

I guess if we were to consider the public cost of trials, we might do away with juries for a start, then shorten or curtail the appeals processes and maybe deny a professional defence for the accused. All those things would reduce the cost burden on the public purse.

Unfortunately, whilst they might make things cheaper, that cheapening would include human rights and they would be the first thing to go.

Does anyone consider it correct to accept a statute of limitations on murder?

If you do not, then you cannot presume that the enormity of the crime and the rights of the victim to any justice diminishs with time.

We can consider the test of the evidence being presented by a sovereign foreign nation. If it stands up to scrutiny, then why should we defend a possible killer from facing his accusers in the normal manner?

Some sentimental argument based on the accused age or frailty is not a good measure of justice.

If the Hungarians think he is so guilty that they are mounting, at their own expense a trial, then if a judicial review of the evidence suggests there is a case to anser, he must answer it. Otherwise, the values which we place in our own justice processes are proportionally diminished.