| dbo:abstract
|
- Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a de facto requirement that legal aid be provided to defendants in serious criminal trials. The Court determined an adjournment ought to be granted in such trials where the accused is without legal representation through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair. The case is said to have "had a fundamental impact on the Australian justice system". Until Dietrich v The Queen, it was customary for those unable to afford legal representation to be forced to trial, even when facing serious criminal charges, with previous High Court rulings finding representation preferable but not requisite for a fair trial. In a 5–2 opinion, the Court confirmed those facing trial are not entitled to legal aid at public expense, but that courts possess power to order a stay where proceeding would result in an unfair trial. The case originated in the County Court of Victoria, where Olaf Dietrich, later known as Hugo Rich, had been convicted of importing a trafficable quantity of heroin. Prior to trial, Dietrich had applied for legal assistance through several avenues, all of which were rejected. After leave to appeal was rejected by the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, the matter was escalated to the High Court of Australia. Counsel for Dietrich applied for appeal on one ground being Dietrich's lack of legal representation meant the trial in the County Court of Victoria was miscarried. (en)
- Dietrich v La Reina es un caso legal importante decidido por el Tribunal supremo de Australia el 13 de noviembre de 1992, derivado de un incidente que tuvo lugar el 17 de diciembre de 1986. Al caso le concierne la naturaleza de un juicio justo y las circunstancias en las cuales el Estado le debe proporcionar ayuda legal a un acusado indigente que no puede costearse representación legal. El caso determinó que, a pesar de que no hay un derecho absoluto a tener acceso a un abogado financiado públicamente, el juez tendría que conceder cualquier petición para un aplazamiento o si el acusado no tiene representación. Es un caso importante en ley criminal australiana y en ley constitucional australiana desde entonces es uno de muchos casos en qué algunos miembros del Tribunal supremo han encontrado implicó derechos humanos en la Constitución australiana. (es)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 33273 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:fullName
|
- Dietrich v The Queen (en)
|
| dbp:judges
|
- Chief Justice: Anthony F. Mason Justices: Francis G. Brennan, William P. Deane, Daryl M. Dawson, John L. Toohey, Mary G. Gaudron and Michael H. McHugh. (en)
|
| dbp:name
|
- Dietrich v The Queen (en)
|
| dbp:opinions
|
- (en)
- if in such circumstances the seeking of adjournment or stay is denied, resulting in an unfair trial, the conviction must be overturned (en)
- where an accused faces serious charges and is not able to obtain representation, any application for adjournment or stay should be granted and the trial delayed until such representation can be obtained (en)
|
| dbp:priorActions
|
- R v Dietrich Supreme Court of Victoria , 1988 (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| gold:hypernym
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a de facto requirement that legal aid be provided to defendants in serious criminal trials. The Court determined an adjournment ought to be granted in such trials where the accused is without legal representation through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair. The case is said to have "had a fundamental impact on the Australian justice system". (en)
- Dietrich v La Reina es un caso legal importante decidido por el Tribunal supremo de Australia el 13 de noviembre de 1992, derivado de un incidente que tuvo lugar el 17 de diciembre de 1986. Al caso le concierne la naturaleza de un juicio justo y las circunstancias en las cuales el Estado le debe proporcionar ayuda legal a un acusado indigente que no puede costearse representación legal. El caso determinó que, a pesar de que no hay un derecho absoluto a tener acceso a un abogado financiado públicamente, el juez tendría que conceder cualquier petición para un aplazamiento o si el acusado no tiene representación. Es un caso importante en ley criminal australiana y en ley constitucional australiana desde entonces es uno de muchos casos en qué algunos miembros del Tribunal supremo han encontrad (es)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Dietrich v The Queen (en)
- Dietrich v The Queen (es)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}