Google

Monday, 13 May 2013

Flesh out argument but bare bones preferred

One of the guiding principles of advocacy is: BE BRIEF.

But, sometimes, just occasionally, some lawyers aren’t brief, even if briefed to be brief. (Who knew?)

I think sometimes, it’s the fear of missing something. We all live in fear of losing a case on a point that we could have covered, but deliberately didn’t cover in the belief it wasn’t necessary.

(Personally, I like at least drafting some sort of written outline of my submissions, because it often helps me sort my thoughts into a more logical — or at least, less illogical — order and see what is needed and what can be culled.)

Theodor Geisel — better known as Dr Seuss — wrote a great little piece on the importance of brevity.
It has often been said
there’s so much to be read,
you never can cram
all those words in your head.

So the writer who breeds
more words than he needs
is making a chore
for the reader who reads.

That’s why my belief is
the briefer the brief is,
the greater the sigh
of the reader’s relief is.
It is possible that somewhere, just maybe, some reader of legal writing agrees with these sentiments.

You might scoff, and say, “No! Surely not!”

But, there are at least three judges in the UK Court of Appeal who quite possibly do agree.

Hat-tip to Paul Bowen QC (@paulebowen). His tweet led me to the recent case of Standard Bank Plc v Via Mat International Ltd & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 490.


There, Lord Justice Moore-Bick wrote the lead judgment allowing an appeal against granting summary judgment.

At the end of his judgement, His Honour was moved to add a postscript.
25. Before leaving this matter I wish to say something about the skeleton arguments in this case. Although there were two applications before the judge, they were complementary and in substance this was a relatively straightforward application for summary judgment. The hearing before the judge was completed within a day, as was the hearing of the appeal and although a large amount of evidence was filed, it proved possible as a result of co-operation between the parties to produce a single core bundle of moderate length which included all the important documents. In those circumstances it is a matter of concern that the skeleton arguments produced for the appeal run to a total of 116 pages, of which by far the greater part (93 pages in all) is made up of the appellant’s skeleton and supplementary skeleton arguments.

26. In the opening paragraphs of his judgment in Khader v Aziz [2010] EWCA Civ 716, [2010] 1 W.L.R. 2673 Sir Anthony May PQBD sounded a clear warning about the risks to our tradition of oral advocacy posed by excessively long skeleton arguments. He did so following complaints of a similar nature voiced by the members of this court in Tombstone Limited v Raja [2008] EWCA Civ 1444, [2009] 1 WLR 1143 and Midgulf International Limited v Groupe Chimique Tunisien [2010] EWCA Civ 66, [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 543. I expressly associated myself with the President’s remarks, pointing out that the purpose of skeleton arguments is to inform the court of the essential elements of the parties’ submissions and thereby enable it to understand the issues and arguments arising on the appeal. I also expressed the view that the best way in which to alleviate the increasingly onerous burden imposed by unduly long and complex skeleton arguments is for the court to be far more willing than it has been in the past to disallow all or part of the costs of any skeleton that fails to serve that essential purpose.

27. It is important that both practitioners and their clients understand that skeleton arguments are not intended to serve as vehicles for extended advocacy and that in general a short, concise skeleton is both more helpful to the court and more likely to be persuasive than a longer document which seeks to develop every point which the advocate would wish to make in oral argument. In this context I wish to draw attention to the provisions of Practice Directions 52A and 52C, both of which apply to proceedings in this court. Each of those Practice Directions contains important provisions relating to the nature and content of skeleton arguments. Practice Direction 52C, in particular, contains specific provisions governing their length and presentation. The court will expect the requirements of both Practice Directions to be rigorously observed. Failure to comply with them is likely to be penalised in costs.

Just in case anyone missed it, Lord Justice Aikens added to the complaint about prolixity.

29. I would, however, like specifically to endorse all Moore-Bick LJ has said in his postscript. Overlong pleadings and written submissions — the true “skeleton argument” of bye-gone days no longer exists — which are manufactured by parties and their lawyers have become the bane of commercial litigation in England and Wales. This prolixity only adds unnecessary costs; it does nothing to clarify and simplify the issues or to shorten proceedings, which aims should be the objectives of both pleadings and written submissions. I recognise that this is not a new problem. In a reported case, Mylward v Weldon (1596) Tothill 102, 21 ER 136, [1595] ECHR Ch 1, it is stated that in 1595 the son of a litigant (the report does not say whether the miscreant was a barrister) produced a pleading (a replication, ie. reply) of “six score sheets of paper” which the Lord Keeper deemed could have been “well contrived” in 16 sheets. The Lord Keeper (Egerton) ordered that the miscreant be imprisoned in the Fleet until he paid a fine of £10 (a huge sum) to Her Majesty and 20 nobles to the defendant. In addition the Lord Keeper ordered:

“...that the Warden of the Fleet shall take the said Richard Mylward...and shall bring him into Westminster Hall on Saturday next, about ten of the clock in the forenoon and then and there shall cut a hole in the myddest of the same engrossed replication…and put the said Richard’s head through the same hole and so let the same replication hang about his shoulders with the written side outward; and then, the same so hanging, shall lead the same Richard, bare headed and bare faced, round about Westminster Hall, whilst the Courts are sitting and shall shew him at the bar of every of the three Courts within the Hall and shall then take him back to the Fleet...”.

30. That sanction against prolix pleaders and submission authors may not be available today, but failure to comply with the letter of the Practice Direction on written submissions and the failure to heed the need for brevity in pleadings may well lead to strict adverse costs orders.
For good measure, Mr. Justice David Richards weighed in with:
31. I also agree.




Skeleton arguments are intended to be written outlines of the main points a party relies on in its application or case, and used as an aid to oral argument, in contrast to written submissions used as an alternative to oral argument. There are several examples in the Advocacy manual used by the Bar Professional Training Course in the UK, and it seems they’re close to the type of submissions we commonly see in Australia, though point-form appears acceptable as well as fully-fledged prose.

For an alternative view on skeleton arguments, and an insight into advocacy practice in the UK, check out Michael Reed at Working Theory.

Criminal trial funding restored, but Legal Aid still needs help

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Chaouk — discussed here — Victoria Legal Aid last week announced that it was restoring funding for solicitors when required in criminal trials.

It’s certainly welcome news, and will prevent what looked like an impending logjam in quite a few trials.

But it hasn’t really addressed the chronic underfunding by the State Government, which is apparent from the latest budget. The Age today reported that VLA is still likely to lose somewhere between $3.1 – $10 million for this financial year, and that the budget papers show the Government expects VLA to provide 4000-odd fewer grants of aid this year. (Gotta admit, I can’t see that in the stuff I can find, but then, I’m no expert at reading budget papers.)

But, there’s no doubt the increase in police will result in more offences detected and prosecuted — what criminologists terms net widening — which will result in more cases coming to our courts. Unless we have a sudden change in the economic composition of accused people in this State, many of them will be unrepresented if they can’t receive legal aid.

While some might say that’s okay — it’s not, really — cases involving self-represented accused typically take a lot longer to resolve and certainly require more work from judicial officers to ensure those people understand their rights and the processes. Ask any prosecutor if they’d prefer to bo opposed to a lawyer who knows what they’re doing or an unrepresented accused, and I can guarantee the answer you’ll get. (I daresay a fair few Benches would feel the same way.) Occasionally, cases simply don’t get resolved until the accused can get a lawyer, which is precisely what’s happening in the UK now as the government there tries to decimate legal aid to ‘save’ £220 million out of an annual £2 billion budget. (See here and here for some examples.)

There are some real doubts about whether the changes will in fact save any money, and concerns about the propriety of having the same firms that run the privatised prisons systems also holding the contracts for the law firms that advise accused people to plead guilty or not guilty — for surely there couldn't be a conflict of interest there?

Though things aren’t quite as grim here as in the UK — at least, not yet — there’s still a desparate need to fund legal aid so that the whole system can cope with the inevitable increase in accused people coming before the courts. If nothing else, that’s a simple case of arithmetic that the government must confront. There is also that quaint little thing called justice, which is arguably as good a reason — if not better — for properly funding legal aid. A new blog called the Barrister’s Wife provides some good examples of what can happen otherwise, as does The Justice Gap.

The return to legally aiding trials is a good thing, but the Government needs to increase funding, as the Bar and LIV said last week.

The other long-term issue I reckon needs looking at is an evaluation of why we need instructing solicitors. I don’t say that to be controversial or to suggest getting rid of them. Far from it. But, a couple of commentors in my post about the decision in Chaouk queried how trials are funded in other jurisdictions. I don’t profess to have any significant experience in other jurisdictions, but I reckon it’s at least worth looking at. I wonder too how other common-law jurisdictions cope. For example, what happens in Canada, and India, and the UK (despite its funding problems)? What about the USA, where they have a fused profession but specialist trial attorneys? Do they truly work with only one trial advocate, or do they too consider it necessary for more than one advocate?

 It might be that there are significant differences that mean comparisons are meaningless. Or perhaps it might be that the system in Victoria is currently so complex that instructors are vital in all circumstances. Either way, it’s a question worth asking and answer worth discovering.

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

Sentencing Amendment (Abolition of Suspended Sentences and Other Matters) Bill 2013

The Sentencing Amendment (Abolition of Suspended Sentences and Other Matters) Bill 2013 was introduced last month.

The explanatory memorandum is available here; the second reading speech here; and the Charter statement of compatibility here.

The Bill proposes a timetable for the complete abolition of suspended sentences:
  • 1 December 2013 — all suspended sentences in higher courts (County and Supreme Courts)
  • 1 December 2014 — all suspended sentences in summary courts (Magistrates’ and Children’s Courts)
These are the default times, and can be proclaimed to commence earlier.

The complete removal of suspended sentences is perhaps not quite as restrictive as first seemed the case.

On close reading, it seems that community correction orders (CCOs) are intended as a substitute for suspended sentences — or indeed any intermediate sentencing option other that immediate jail.

When the Attorney-General commenced the abolition of suspended sentences and introduced CCOs in the Sentencing Amendment (Community Correction Reform) Bill 2011, he spent some time  In the Second Reading speech, the Attorney-General spent some time explaining this.

The government recognises that jailing an offender is the most serious punishment available. There must be a flexible and practical approach to community-based sentencing that can be tailored to suit the very wide range of offending which, while serious, does not warrant a sentence of imprisonment. This approach is embodied in the reforms introduced in this bill, to which I will now turn.
New approach to community-based sentencing in Victoria
Community-based sentences are an important part of the sentencing spectrum. They provide courts with a way to intervene in the lives of offenders who deserve more than a fine, but should not be sent to prison. A community-based sentence allows an offender to remain in the community. Offenders are able to maintain their employment, live at home and draw on the support of their family and friends.
At the same time, offenders are subject to certain obligations — for example, they may have to report to Corrections Victoria, undertake unpaid community work or complete programs that address the reasons for their criminal conduct.
The existing range of community-based sentences does not provide courts with sufficient flexibility to directly target the offender and the offence. The combined custody treatment order (CCTO), for example, is rarely used by the courts and intensive correction orders are generally considered an inflexible option.
The Sentencing Advisory Council, in the Suspended Sentences — Final Report — Part 2, noted that the overuse of suspended sentences in Victoria is at least partly due to the failings of intermediate sentencing orders.
The new CCO introduced in this bill will replace these orders with a single comprehensive and highly flexible order. The bill draws on several recommendations made by the council in its final report to create a new intermediate order.
Specifically, the CCO will replace the combined custody treatment order, intensive correction order (ICO), the intensive correction management order (which has not come into effect) and the community-based order (CBO). From the commencement of this bill, these orders will no longer be available to courts in sentencing offenders. Existing orders will continue until their end date. After that time, if an offender is convicted of breaching one of the abolished orders, the court will resentence the offender under the new sentencing framework.
A CCO sits between imprisonment and fines in the sentencing hierarchy. The CCO will be available for any offence punishable by more than five penalty units.
The CCO will also provide an alternative sentencing option for offenders who are at risk of being sent to jail. These offenders may not yet deserve a jail sentence but should be subject to significant restrictions and supervision if they are going to live with the rest of the community. The broad range of new powers under the CCO will allow courts wide flexibility to tailor their response to address the needs of offenders and set appropriate punishments.
Instead of using the legal fictions of imposing a term of imprisonment that is suspended or served at home, the courts will now openly sentence offenders to jail or, where appropriate, use the CCO to openly sentence the offender to a community-based sentence. Unlike the CCTO and ICO, which are technically sentences of imprisonment, the CCO is a community-based sentence. There is no legal fiction involved. The CCO can be combined with a jail sentence, but it will not pretend to be one. The CCO is a transparent sentence that can be understood by everyone in the community: Parliament of Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 15 Sep 2011, 3291 – 3295 (Attorney-General, Robert Clark).
The Attorney-General continued this theme in the second reading speech for the Sentencing Amendment (Abolition of Suspended Sentences and Other Matters) Bill 2013.
As I have said before in this place, suspended sentences are a legal fiction that pretends offenders are serving a term of imprisonment when in fact they are living freely in the community, not subject to any restrictions, community service obligations or reporting requirements. Offenders effectively walk away unpunished and often then go on to commit further crimes: Parliament of Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 17 Apr 2013, 1259 – 1261 (Attorney-General, Robert Clark)
Because CCOs can now operate up to a period of time equivalent to the maximum sentence for an offence, some of the previous shortcomings of intermediate sentencing orders falls away. In some cases, a CBO or ICO might have been appropriate, but only if it ran for longer than the prescribed periods that were available.

Of course, sometimes an offence is just so serious, that jail is the only realistic option. The Sentencing Advisory Council noted that on p xxiv of the Suspended Sentences — Final Report — Part 2, writing:

It is important to retain a number of distinct sentencing orders to provide well-defined ‘rungs’ in the penal ladder, and to affirm that a sentence of immediate imprisonment is a sentence of last resort reserved for the most serious offences, and for offenders at high risk of reoffending.
As I understand it, the point of abolishing suspended sentences and replacing them partly with CCOs is in answer the mental gymnastics required by s 27(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991.

Section 27 provides for suspended sentences, but imposes this restriction on a sentencing court:

(3) A court must not impose a suspended sentence of imprisonment unless the sentence of imprisonment, if unsuspended, would be appropriate in the circumstances having regard to the provisions of this Act.
At first blush, it seems odd to hold that it’s appropriate to send an offender to jail after considering and rejecting every other option in the sentencing hierarchy, as required by sub-ss 5(3) and (4), and then turn to s 27(1A) and conclude that it’s not appropriate to send the offender to jail. Whatever your thoughts about that apparent tension and if it can be resolved, the current Government seems to have decided to do away with it entirely.

I guess it will take a while for the sentencing jurisprudence to fully incorporate all these changes and reach a settled view. I haven’t yet heard of CCOs being imposed for years — certainly not beyond the old three-year upper limit available in the County and Supreme Courts for the previous community based orders (CBOs). But no doubt there will be cases where lengthy CCOs will be appropriate.

I think of the result as being that if an offender does not go out the back door of the courthouse after sentencing and instead remains in the community, then there will be some intrusive interference in their life on a regular basis, so that they will feel the sting of the penalty on a day-to-day basis while they metaphorically break bluestone. In some cases, that’s probably a far more onerous sentence than a suspended sentence ever was.

And, with effect from 1 May 2013, section 48JA of the Sentencing Act 1991 commenced operation (introduced by the Sentencing Amendment (Community Correction Reform) Act 2011 s 58 and amended before its commencement by Courts and Sentencing Legislation Amendment Act 2012 s 71).
This provision permits a sentencing court to impose a bond condition on a CCO, where the offender has to stump up some cold hard cash as a measure of their sincerity about complying with the order. The court can specify some or all of that money that the offender will forfeit to consolidated revenue in the event they don’t comply with the order.


Sunday, 5 May 2013

Get a room, or get a cell? R v Vaiciulevicius [2013] EWCA Crim 153

R v Vaiciulevicius [2013] EWCA Crim 153 was an appeal against sentence for an offence of outraging public decency, which is one of the four types of public nuisance I discussed here.

When the case is added to Bailii’s database, it should be accessible at this link, but until then, I’ve put a PDF here.

The Court of Appeal stated the facts this way at [2]:


On a Sunday afternoon in early September 2012 the appellant and a woman, both heavily intoxicated, had consensual sexual intercourse in a public park. They had made no attempt to conceal their activity and were visible to other persons in the park including, unsurprisingly, young children who were playing there. They had removed their lower clothing. They stopped only when spoken to by police officers. When later interviewed the applicant admitted the offence and said that he was disgusted by his own behaviour.

Because the offence is a common-law offence, there is little guidance to the Courts for an appropriate sentencing range. The Court considered similar offences, but then said:


[11.] The aggravating features of the present offence are obvious. It was committed in public, with a complete disregard for the shock or distress that it was likely to cause anyone who witnessed it. The presence nearby of young children was a serious aggravating feature. Whether or not the applicant specifically noted their proximity, it was readily foreseeable that they would be playing in the park on a Sunday afternoon. The applicant’s intoxication was a further aggravating feature. So too were his previous convictions, albeit for different types of offence, and the fact that he had so recently
been released from prison.

[12.] For all those reasons, and notwithstanding that this was the first time that the applicant had committed an offence of this nature, the judge was, in our view, entitled to view this case as a serious one.

[13.] We cannot accept Mr Magee’s submission that a sentence of immediate imprisonment was wrong in principle. In our judgment, the learned judge was entitled to conclude that this offence passed the custody threshold and that only an immediate sentence of imprisonment would suffice.

The Court substituted the original 6 month jail sentence with 3 months instead! Seems to be a bit of a puritan overkill to me. Of course no one wants to see folks demonstrating their mojo at the local park, but it does seem a bit disproportionate to the harm. Seems then the message is definitely, “Get a room, or you’ll get a room all right.”



DPP v Batich [2013] VSCA 53 — summary determination of charges

DPP v Batich [2013] VSCA 53 considered a County Court case where the sentencing judge held he should refer an offence of glassing, charged as recklessly causing serious injury, back to the Magistrates' Court.

Some indictable offences can be determined summarily, that is, before a court of summary jurisdiction, or before a trial court on indictment (Our UK colleagues refer to such offences as either-way offences).

There are two pathways to summary determination.

The first and most common way is where the accused applies for (and is granted) a summary hearing at the Magistrates’ Court, under Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ss 28 and 29. (These provisions are pretty similar to the UK guidelines found in Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) [2002] 1 WLR 2870 available here.)

The second, and far less common, is where the accused applies for and is granted a transfer of the charge from a trial court back to the Magistrates’ Court for summary determination, under Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 168. (The two sections are dopplegängers.)

The trial judge used that section to remit the offence to the Magistrates’ Court.

Initially, the judge had canvassed the possibility of imposing a suspended sentence, but was reminded that it was no longer possible for a significant offence because of Sentencing Act 1991 s 27(2B). He also considered a community corrections order (CCO) and youth justice centre (YJC) order. He was aware that the Court of Appeal said in Winch that ordinarily, glassing cases would attract a jail sentence.


The DPP unsuccessfully reviewed that decision, first in the Supreme Court — see DPP v Batich [2012] VSC 524, and then to the Court of Appeal, asking:

1. In making the order transferring the charge in Indictment B13063849 to be transferred to the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne to be heard and determined summarily:

A. Did his Honour make the order for an improper purpose, namely, to circumvent the operation of S.27(2B) of the Sentencing Act 1991, which prohibited him from imposing a suspended sentence in respect of a charge of recklessly cause (sic) serious injury, which required the imposition of a custodial sentence, the determination of which he was seized of in the proceedings before him?

B. Did his Honour in making the order take into account an irrelevant consideration, namely that he had no jurisdiction to pass a suspended sentence in respect of the charge of recklessly causing serious injury, where a custodial sentence was called for, the determination of which he was seized of in the proceedings before him?

C. Has his Honour refused to exercise his jurisdiction to sentence the Respondent?

2. Is his Honour’s order an abuse of process of the County Court?
The Court of Appeal held that the answers to every question should be 'no'.

At [31] – [44], it rejected the argument that the entire range of sentences that open in this case had to be available to the Magistrates’ Court, but did accept transfer would not be appropriate if only the very bottom of the acceptable sentencing range fell within the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction. (The Magistrates’ Court may only impose up to two years’ jail on any single offence, and five years’ jail in aggregate.)

Further, in this case, the youth of the offender, the relevance of possible self-defence (at least as a mitigatory consideration, rather than a defence to the charge), lack of criminal history, good prospects of rehabilitation and vulnerability if sentence to adult jail, meant the County Court could properly distinguish the cases relied on by the DPP in arguing that only an immediate jail sentence of more than two years was appropriate.

Although Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 168(3) meant the Magistrates’ Court couldn't send the charge back to the County Court — no curial ping-pong here — equally, the remitter didn't bind the Magistrates' Court. It could conclude a wholly suspended sentence was appropriate; but equally, it could also conclude that a partial or full jail sentence was necessary, albeit up to no more than 2 years.

Next week, I'll discuss the Sentencing Amendment (Abolition of Suspended Sentences and Other Matters) Bill 2013, which proposes removing the County Court's ability to remit a significant offence to the Magistrates' Court. (It doesn't say anything about serious offences, because none of them are triable summarily.)

Despite this, I think Batich will remain an important criminal case because:

  • it highlights at [46] the point raised in Winch (and other glassing cases) that, "[T]he statements in Winch do not lay down a mandatory minimum sentence, rather in that case the court made a statement of principle. Each case will need to be considered individually albeit within the context of current sentencing practices"; and
  • it provides the first judicial consideration of s 29 and 168 considerations for summary determination, clarifying the importance of available range of sentence.
Batich is consistent with Hansford v Judge Neesham [1995] 2 VR 233 — which, interestingly enough, wasn't mentioned in Batich —but arguably goes one step further it expressly stating it’s not necessary for all of the proper sentencing range to fall within the jurisdictional limits of the Magistrates’ Court. It perhaps overturns the effect of Scrofani v Duke, SC V, 25 Sep 1991, Ashley J, which upheld a refusal of summary jurisdiction though recognising that the appropriate sentence might fall within that open to the Magistrates’ Court.

The only uncertainty I can see that might arise from Batich is where the Court of Appeal said that transfer (and arguably by implication, first-instance granting of summary jurisdiction) is not appropriate if only the very bottom of the proper sentencing range falls within the Magistrates' Court jurisdiction. The potential for disagreement over what is the ‘very bottom’ of a sentencning range might lead to argument over what is appropriate for summary jurisdiction, though most cases tend to be clearly in or out.

Thursday, 2 May 2013

R v Chaouk [2013] VSCA 99: no funding for instructors means trials likely to be unfair

Edit: Austlii now has R v Chaouk online.



Today in R v Chaouk [2013] VSCA 99, the Court of Appeal rejected an application by the DPP to appeal Justice Lasry's decision in February to stay a murder trial until VLA agreed to fund an instructing solicitor.

The original decision was R v Chaouk [2013] VSC 48. That decision was affirmed about a week later by Justice T Forrest in MK v Legal Aid [2013] VSC 49.

Today's Court of Appeal decision is not yet on Austlii — I expect it will probably be posted tomorrow — but till then you can download R v Chaouk [2013] VSCA 99 here.

Arguably, as a refusal of leave, this creates no precedent and so the single-judge decision remains valid: Blackmore v Linton [1961] VR 374 at 380; Mihaljevic v Longyear (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 1 at 25; Sir Anthony Mason, 'Where now?' (1975) 49 Australian Law Journal 570 at 575.

In any event, the Court said at [17]:


In case it matters, however, we should say that, even if the Crown were permitted to advance that point for the first time on appeal, we are not at all persuaded that the judge was in error in finding that, in the circumstances of this case, a fair trial necessitated the attendance of the defence instructing solicitor at trial for each day of the trial.

And later at [31]:


For the reasons already stated, we do not consider that the judge proceeded upon wrong principle. To the contrary, his Honour’s perception of relevant law appears to us to be right. Nor do we consider that the judge took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to have regard to any relevant considerations in the course of his reasoning process. To the contrary, his Honour’s survey of the facts and relevant considerations, and in particular his Honour’s analysis of the critical importance of the role of instructing solicitor in the course of a criminal trial for a serious indictable offence, present to us as compelling. His Honour was bound to make a judgment of fact and degree. His conclusion was plainly open to him. Indeed, so far from his conclusion being so plainly unjust as to imply that his Honour must have failed properly to exercise his discretion, we find it difficult to imagine on the particular facts of this case that his Honour could properly have come to any other conclusion.

In the short term, this means the trial against Chaouk won't proceed unless VLA modifies its current grants policy, or the State government provides additional funding, or both.

The Law Institute issued a media release calling on the government to increase legal aid funding to prevent further stays, but The Age quotes Attorney-General Robert Clark as rejecting this.