Adjournment In The Case Of Olaf Dietrich's Flight From Australia

On the 17th of December 1986, Olaf Dietrich arrived in Melbourne from a flight from Thailand and was charged the next day with four counts of drug trafficking. He was alleged to have swallowed 70 grams of heroin in small packets in attempt to smuggle them through customs. Olaf Dietrich was found, in his first trial, guilty by a jury of importing no less than a trafficable amount of heroin as pursuant to section 233B of the Customs Act of 1901. Dietrich at first alleged that the drugs had been planted by the police. He was found guilty of two other counts and sentenced in the Victorian County Court. He plead not guilty for all counts he was originally indicted for. Yet, during the trial process Dietrich believed that he had the right to counsel, and the right to legal representation at the cost of the public. Dietrich, in the initial stages of the trial filed for legal representation with the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria, but was rejected as Dietrich refused to plead guilty to the charges. The case in the County Court lasted just forty days, from the 23rd of May 1988 to the return of the jury’s verdict on the 29rd of july 1988. Prior to the trial however, Dietrich made an application pursuant to section 69 of the Judiciary act of 1903. He then asked the judge sitting on the case for an adjournment but again was rejected. He appealed next to the Supreme Court of Victoria but was rejected on the grounds that he failed to file an application by the required time. An application written for the right to legal representation to the Commonwealth minister for Justice as well as the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth also proved to be unsuccessful. An application was then filed to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the grounds that an indigent accused who has been charged with a serious indictable offence has the right to legal representation at the cost of the state, and that the failure to grant counsel was then a miscarriage of justice that should result in the acquittal of the defendant.The three judges O 'Bryan, Gray and Vincent JJ, rejected the appeal. He was then prompted to appeal to the High Court of Australia on the basis that as an indigent accused, he had the right to a fair trial and thus should have the right to legal assistance at the expense of the public. He was represented on a pro bono basis by David Grace, QC. The main motivation of Dietrich’s appeal was his strong objection of being tried without access to counsel,which he stated continuously throughout his trial and his strong protestation to pleading guilty, which would have granted him counsel during the first trial in the County Court. Without access to legal representation, Dietrich was not given the right to a fair right and thus was not granted one of the most important civic rights. He further asserted that that it was a judge 's responsibility to ensure a fair trial, and thus an adjournment should …show more content…
In the judgement of Mason CJ and McHugh J, it was said that a “ trial judge who is faced with an application for an adjournment or a stay by an indigent accused charged with a serious offence [...] the trial in such a case should be adjourned, postponed or stayed until legal representation is available. The judgement also stated that “an accused has the right to a fair trial and that, depending on all the circumstances of the particular case, lack of representation may mean that an accused is unable to receive, or did not receive, a fair trial. “ Moreover, the judgement of Deane and Gaudron suggested that the right to receive counsel was found in the Constitution, specifically Chapter Three which requires that ‘judicial process and fairness be observed.’ However, both Justice Brennan and Justice Dawson dissented, stating that it would unjust for judges to adjourn or stay trial due to the pressures it would place on legal aid agencies. For Dietrich, the outcome of the High Court case meant that without the legal representation he had required for the trial and due to the trial judge’s failure to grant an adjournment, a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Resultantly, the verdict of the original trial was overturned and it was ordered that a retrial take