I don't think there is any question in anyone's mind about the corruptness of the entire judiciary/legal system (corrupt = not conforming to intentions) in Australia. The question in my mind is why, having known about the way it does NOT serve justice for so many years, nothing has been done to swing the scales of justice back to a better balanced system?

Unfortunately, you are right.

Situation in which the outcome of the court ruling depends on how much money you have to spend is nothing short of prostitution of justice.

It's good that somebody put it clearly on the table.

Paul

It is well put and when something is really done about this situation it will keep going on.

The major parties are not to concerned so we should be trying for a better change and someone who wants to make the changes and not just talk.

If interested email swulrich@bigpond.net.au

no strings attached

This is just one aspect where companies get a tax deduction for legal fees and the individual has too pay from their own pocket, sometimes mortaging the house.

Another aspect is;The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault

“Manifesting Bias”

"If Social Security is the “third rail” of American politics, then sex is the third rail of American law. Anyone who touches it, except in the manner approved by the tyrants of tolerance, is fried. In this realm, the tyranny of tolerance is best described as rule by the radical feminist cadre of liberalism. Like the rest of the illiberal liberals, femifascists display single-minded devotion to imposing their tyranny on the American people—and will viciously punish those who resist."

"I learned this from painful experience."

"In that opinion, I felt obliged to sound an alarm about the threat that radical feminist sexual harassment theories pose to common sense and common law, especially because such views could easily lead to fictitious claims and vexatious suits. I was blunt in my criticism of radical feminist views of sexual harassment law."

Unfortunately, if you are a rich and powerful litigant, you can grind down the other side by drawing out the litigation. I think the cost of hiring a solicitor is a problem across the board. There is a bad focus in law firms on making profit (maximising billable hours). Lawyers sometimes forget that the whole reason we are in business is to help people resolve disputes. It is no wonder that there is an increasing trend for less well resourced parties to become litigants in person. This just leads to further clogging of already over-stretched Courts.

I used to act for various lenders at certain points in my career. Often I had to repossess houses. There were a few really bad eggs, but many people were in trouble because of exceptional circumstances (divorce, illness or the like). Sometimes, the lender had given the creditor far too much money. Unfortunately, most of the defendants were unrepresented and didn't have a clue. This has convinced me that we need to have:
(a) easier access to cheap or free legal services (we recognise this is necessary for medical help, why not legal help?);
(b) more education of lay people about basic legal concepts (contracts, mortgages and the like);
(c) less legal mumbo jumbo and legal principles which are more intuitively understandable.

I suppose the problem is that it's not in the interests of many lawyers to make the law more accessible. Anyway, THIS lawyer thinks it's worth trying.
For more info, see my recent blog post:
http://legalsoapbox.blogspot.com/2007/01/justice-for-all.html

Legal Eagle thank you for that post it is most helpful.
If you wish to use more of that expertise i would be extremely grateful. It would assist in my policy making.
This is an area that i know that gives the people the sh#ts as not being able to or afford, so something has to done and fought for.
That is what i am doing, fighting for the people.

Thanks

email swulrich@bigpond.net.au