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

I too thank LegalEagle. I've got your blog URL and will be in touch in a week or so. I'm about to go on hopefully a short holiday where internet is not permitted. Yay!

Rob points to a particular case but it is the same in most cases is it not?

Justice does not exist for most people, never has really. Why do governments do nothing about this? Simple really. They use this overwhelming legal and financial power on the public themselves of course. Our money turned against us. They have no interest in changing that as they are the biggest misusers of legal threats and the like.

If private companies do it too then who can blame them. They have been shown the way and follow gladly.

I'd ask that people read what is written when enquiries and pending DPP cases are dropped or find no fault. What is usually said is that "insufficient evidence was found". Not "Mr/Ms X is innocent and has done nothing". It is abuse of the "innocent until proven gulity" facade we live under. Todays' clearance of Peter Beattie from the charge of bullying an MP was dropped due to no evidence. Being found or disclosed that is but the last bit is not said publicly.

Insufficient evidence? Documents destroyed, witnesses lie, governments block people from speaking up. Insufficient evidence? I don't think so.

While ever we have an adversarial system, it will be 1) win at all costs and 2) conceal most of the evidence.
The adversarial system is not about finding out the truth; it is merely trying to prove something. Therefore there is a need to control the evidence; and therin it controls the system. It has been publicly, and I must stress publicly, stated that lawyers are serial liars. They will, and do, say anything, to win their case. It is not a system that the ordinary person can put any trust in or expect any justice from. I say again: the many faults contained within it have been in the public arena for many years, yet still nothing is being done. The Law Reform Society (and this body is the only one who has been actively involved in doing anything), has done too little to be taken seriously. Who has the vested interests? The balance of power must begin to swing in the opposite direction.
arcticdog

missed this earlier :-(

The first reason our legal system is faulty is our High Court. Australia's High Court was given independance and security because Australians did NOT do NOT trust those who wish to govern them.

How our legal system and our political system operate is the consequence of decisions made in the High Court. Perhaps we should elect our High Court Justices.

Certainly a better legal system could be a system where legal practitioners were employed on a medicare style system with their wage levels assessed and paid by a Legal Commission.

Everyone have opportunity to be represented.

We pay Police, Defence, Doctors etc so why not society employ legal practitioners similarly ?

As with Medical Doctors if our legals began working on community payroll then as achieve better skills and or reputations, can spend more %time in private practice and pay more taxes...

There are many people scattered around Australia with cases stuck in the limbo land of permanent stays from lack of representation and the costs of having issues judicially resolved.