Dietrich v The Queen

Dietrich v The Queen is an important legal case decided in the High Court of Australia on 13 November 1992. It concerned the nature of the right to a fair trial and under what circumstances indigent defendants should be provided with legal aid. The case determined that although there is no absolute right to have publicly funded counsel, a judge should grant any request for an adjournment or stay in most circumstances in which an accused is unrepresented.

About Dietrich v The Queen in brief

Dietrich v The Queen is an important legal case decided in the High Court of Australia on 13 November 1992. It concerned the nature of the right to a fair trial and under what circumstances indigent defendants should be provided with legal aid by the state. The case determined that although there is no absolute right to have publicly funded counsel, a judge should grant any request for an adjournment or stay in most circumstances in which an accused is unrepresented. It is animportant case in Australian criminal law and in Australian constitutional law since it is one of many cases in which some members of the High court have found implied human rights in the Australian Constitution. On 17 December 1986, the accused, the career criminal Olaf Dietrich, flew from Bangkok, Thailand, to Melbourne Airport. He had imported at least 70 g of heroin, which he concealed within condoms that he had swallowed. He was arrested the next morning by the Australian Federal Police, who searched his flat and found one of the condoms in the kitchenand some heroin in a plastic bag under a rug in another room. Dietrich alleged that the drugs had been planted by the police. Although Dietrich was acquitted of the fourth charge, the possession of a quantity of heroin separate to what was involved in the first three charges, he was convicted of the principal charge in the County Court. He argued that he should have been provided with counsel at public expense because of the seriousness of the crime with which he was charged. However, the court found that the provision means only that an accused is entitled to counsel paid for by that person or someone else, not counsel provided by theState.

In the U.S., the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that the accused shall enjoy the right  to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. In the case of Powell v Alabama in 1932, the Supreme Court held that that did not necessarily mean that counsel had to be provided by state. In other countries such as Canada and Canada, the right was guaranteed in the Seventh Amendment of the U States Bill of Rights. Australia has not incorporated the ICCPR into its domestic law with any specific legislation, unlike some other international treaties, such as World Heritage treaties. However, Dietrich argued that the common law of Australia should be developed in accordance with the principles in the international treaties to which Australia is a party. In his High Court appeal, DietRich was represented by David Grace, QC. The main argument advanced on Dietrich’s behalf was that his trial was a miscarriage of justice since he did not have legal representation. He suggested three different sources in law that he asserted. The first was section 397 of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958. The second source that Dietrich proposed was Australia’s obligations under international law, particularly under the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The third source was a group of similar cases in other countries like Canada and United States.

Related posts:

Al-Kateb v Godwin Menominee Tribe v. United States Voting Rights Act of 1965 Supreme Court of the United States