The Dietrich Dilemma

This avowal encapsulates the touchstone on which the promise of Dietrich both is founded and has floundered. In Dietrich, the High Court had regard to the growing body of international human rights law as a legitimate influence in developing the common law right not to be tried unfairly in the absence of legal representation, yet decisions since Dietrich have indicated that the scope of the Australian right to fair trial in this aspect is likely to be narrower than that recognised under the International Covenants or the Constitutional right recognised in the United States and Canada or under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Though declining to specify even the minimum content of a fair trial, civil or criminal, the High Court held that only exceptionally will a trial for a serious criminal offence be fair where the accused has been forced on unrepresented because s/he was without the financial


Introduction
TWo years after the decision in Dietrich v The Queen, 1 the High Court restated: ...the principle in Dietrich is concerned with the right to a fair trial of a party to criminal proceedings. 2 This avowal encapsulates the touchstone on which the promise of Dietrich both is founded and has floundered. In Dietrich, the High Court had regard to the growing body of international human rights law as a legitimate influence in developing the common law right not to be tried unfairly in the absence of legal representation, yet decisions since Dietrich have indicated that the scope of the Australian right to fair trial in this aspect is likely to be narrower than that recognised under the International Covenants or the Constitutional right recognised in the United States and Canada or under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 3 Though declining to specify even the minimum content of a fair trial, civil or criminal, the High Court held that only exceptionally will a trial for a serious criminal offence be fair where the accused has been forced on unrepresented because s/he was without the financial

QUTLJ
The Dietrich Dilemma charged with a serious criminal offence who, by reason of lack of means and without fault on his/her part is denied legal representation, will have lost "a real chance of acquittal" 8 and their trial will have been unfair. Legal representation is so central to a fair trial, that only in exceptional circumstances should a trial for a serious criminal matter proceed in its absence. 9 In all other serious cases, the court should exercise the inherent power recognised in Jago v District Court (NSW), 10 and grant an adjournment or a stay of proceedings so that representation may be obtained.
Mason CJ and McHughJ stated the effect of the views of the majority as follows: ...we identify what the majority considers to be the approach which should be adopted by a trial judge who is faced with an application for an adjournment or a stay by an indigent accused charged with a serious offence who, through no fault on his or her part, is unable to obtain legal representation. In that situation, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the trial in such a case should be adjourned, postponed or stayed until legal representation is available. If, in those circumstances, an application that the trial be delayed is refused and, by reason of the lack of representation of the accused, the resulting trial is not a fair one, any conviction of the accused must be quashed by an appellate court for the reason that there has been a miscarriage of justice in that the accused has been convicted without a fair trial. 11

In New South Wales v Canellis, the High Court reaffirmed:
The Solicitor-General's submission that the common law does not recognise an entitlement of an accused at trial to publicly funded legal representation is supported by all the judgments in Dietrich. At the same time, the principle established by the decision in that case is that a court has jurisdiction to grant an adjournment or order a permanent stay of proceedings at a trial until such time as an indigent person charged with a serious criminal offence is provided with legal representation necessary for a fair trial or resources for such representation. As the majority judgements made clear, that principle is based on, and derives form, the accused's right to a fair trial. 12 The High Court has addressed the notion of a "right to fair trial" in a series of decisions 13 but, for the reasons expressed in Dietrich, has declined to formulate with any specificity the content of the fairness requirement:  (1997) Clearly enough, the concept of a fair trial is one that is impossible, in advance, to formulate exhaustively or even comprehensively. Only a body of judicial decisions gives content to the concept. 14 "Fairness" must depend on the facts of the particular case 15 and some members of the court in Dietrich referred to the content of fairness as one that is responsive to changing social values and standards. 16 In this regard, Brennan J in dissent spoke of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Art 14(3)(d) as a "concrete indication of contemporary values". 17 The ICCPR and its European equivalent, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), attempt to specify in some detail, though not exhaustively, the content of fairness in a criminal context and, following decisions of the Human Rights Committee, a draft United Nations Declaration was produced in 1991 addressing this important question. 18

3.1.The Content of the Dietrich test
For trial courts faced with unrepresented accused, the application of the Dietrich test has not been unproblematic. The High Court provided only rudimentary assistance as to how the matters identified as relevant to the invocation of the principle were to be applied. In the years since, a substantial amount of time and money has been devoted to giving substance to the pre-conditions enumerated by the High Court, the purport of some of which yet remain to be satisfactorily resolved.
The accused person seeking an adjournment, postponement or stay on the grounds of Dietrich must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that: • the charge is for a serious offence; • they are indigent; Mason CJ and McHugh J suggested that the decision on these matters is "inextricably linked to the facts of the case and the background of the accused". 20 Additional issues have also arisen post-Dietrich. If an accused can satisfy the court as to these matters, what quality of representation does Dietrich guarantee? Does Dietrich "legal representation as a component of fair trial" have any application as a safeguard of fairness in other criminal proceedings (such as appeals, committals, bail applications and commissions of inquiry)? Are Dietrich stays for unrepresented parties available in civil matters? These issues as to the specific content and scope of the principle will now be examined.

Serious offences 21
The majority in Dietrich contemplated that the principle applies only to "serious" cases. Just as it is arbitrary to confine the desirability of legal representation to the trial only (discussed below), it is similarly illogical to restrict this fundamental aspect of fair trial to serious charges only. At a very basic level this operates irrationally and impacts on the delivery of criminal justice: obiter in Dietrich suggests that the principle does not extend to summary trials 22 and there is evidence that this induces accused persons generally to elect to have cases dealt with on indictment, with virtually guaranteed legal aid. 23 The High Court did not attempt to settle what constitutes a "serious" criminal charge. Toohey J considered that Dietrich's charges were serious as he faced life imprisonment. 24 Deane J also considered the question, and by reference to American authority, suggested the determinant should be "where there is no real threat of deprivation of personal liberty". 25 If the test is to be threat of imprisonment without regard to the term of potential incarceration (which is by no means clear from the cases), the range of offences is not much narrowed. Logically, a threshold test of "any imprisonment" would seem just. The consequences of imprisonment, even for "non-serious" offences, may be quite devastating: a sole parent may lose his/ her children; a sole bread-winner's family is deprived of that financial support; persons may lose employment and, consequently, their homes. But how will Dietrich apply where the risk of imprisonment is slight and the offence cannot really be regarded as "serious"? What if the offence is clearly a serious one but there is no possibility of imprisonment? On what basis does logic dictate drawing the line at short term imprisonment? What of ...an environmental offence carrying as monetary maximum of $lm? One reason for the lack of precision may be that an unfair trial is an unfair trial whether or not the charge is serious. 26 In R v Connell (No 7), 21 White J referred to Seaman J in Connelly Lucas and Carter 28 and was easily satisfied that the applicant was charged with serious offences: each of the offences carried a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.
In Cummings v R 29 and Fuller v R, 30 Barlow J was also satisfied that the offences were serious: In my view it would be incorrect to view each charge separately. In relation to this matter of seriousness it is appropriate to have regard not only to a particular offence, but to the fact the applicant has been charged with a number of offences and also to the fact that in relation to three of those charges he has been charged with another person. 31 However, while few would doubt that Dietrich's facing life imprisonment or Conneirs facing several years of imprisonment or even Cummings and Fuller being charged with a number of offences are all "serious" matters, real issues remain under this aspect of Dietrich which highlight the arbitrariness of limiting the right to a fair trial by reference to a determinant of "seriousness".

Indigence 32
A number of questions have been generated under this head of Dietrich, few of

QUTLJ
The Dietrich Dilemma which have been resolved definitively to date. Moreover, the international jurisprudence offers little guidance in this area. The phrase employed in both the ICCPR and the ECHR is that the accused has not "sufficient means" and this terminology is drawn on by Deane J in his formulation "by reason of lack of means". 33 Mason CJ and McHugh J considered that "ad hoc" determination by a trial judge of impecuniosity would be "unwise and undesirable". 34 But how to and who to determine indigence? What must an accused show in the way of absence of cash, easily realised assets, jointly held assets or other sources of finance as has been required by the American authorities? 35 Is the accused required to submit to examination on the issue of indigence when s/he need not give evidence otherwise? How close may these investigations come to trespassing on the matters for which the accused stands trial? Related to the last is that proceeds of crime legislation may make a sensitive and awkward enquiry even more so. The question of indigence is obviously related to the issue of quality of representation and what of the accused who can afford representation for a trial of a particular length but no longer? 36 The designation "indigent" is one commonly employed in the American decisions on representation in criminal matters. That jurisprudence indicates that the Court must take into account the funds which are available to the accused from family, friends, trusts and the potential sale of assets. 37 In R v Connell, Lucas and Carter, Seaman J considered the meaning of "indigent": I do not favour the meaning of "indigent" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary which is relied upon by counsel; I prefer the meaning given by that dictionary "lacking in what is requisite; wanting, deficient". 38 As has been observed in later authorities, indigence in this sense "cannot be absolute but must be relative to the demands or need involved". 39 Specifically, in Connell, Lucas and Carter Seaman J found that the assets of the accused's wife were available to the accused, to the extent of roughly one half, and the value of that share was assessed and specified. Having done so however, his Honour expressed the opinion that "much better mechanisms need to be created to determine questions of this sort". There have been consequent calls for the establishment of an independent body to determine the question of the accused's indigence (and the often inseparable "fault" issue). 40 In a further development, Barlow J in Cummings and Fuller was of the opinion that the two accused could not be described as "indigent", nor could they be said to have failed to obtain representation without "fault", until they had taken "all reasonable steps" to obtain any statutory entitlement to property settlement and/ or maintenance under th^Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Similarly, the bankrupt accused should seek from his/her trustee in bankruptcy allowances for legal costs from either that spousal property settlement or the existing estate. 41 It was said in R v Karounos, that it was open to the court, if it saw fit, to review the Legal Aid Commission's assessment of indigence. 42 This approach has been endorsed in A-G (NSW) v Milat 43 where the Court of Criminal Appeal emphasised that the relationship between the Legal Aid Commission and the trial judge is one where "their respective functions are separate and independent": it is for the trial judge to decide in light of what the Legal Aid Commission has done, whether there has been an infringement of the accused's right to a fair trial.

Fault 44
The issue of fault, tied as it is to indigence, is also related to the "exceptional categories" identified by Deane and Gaudron JJ, which will deny an accused the benefit of Dietrich where the accused "declines" or "persistently refuses or neglects to take advantage of" legal representation. 45 The fault inquiry has spawned much judicial analysis. Understandably the focus is on the presence of any unreasonable conduct (the absence of any fault) on the part of the accused: "not doing what is reasonable in the circumstances, or doing something which reasonably ought not to be done". 46 For example, in the pre-Dietrich case of Greer 47 it was held that the accused was not entitled to an adjournment when he unjustifiably withdrew instructions from counsel at the commencement of the trial.
It has been said that the concept of fault should not be interpreted narrowly and will include the neglect of an accused to arrange representation when there was

QUTLJ
The Dietrich Dilemma adequate time available to do so. 48 The Queensland Court of Appeal recently held in Gudgeon 49 that, despite the unavailability of senior counsel of choice due to illness, the accused's trial was not unfair in the Dietrich sense because the accused, nevertheless, had adequate opportunity to obtain legal representation. McPherson JA and Thomas J considered that this type of unreasonable conduct could be equated to the category of exceptional cases described by Deane J where the accused "persistently neglects or refuses to take advantage of legal representation that is available". 50 Hunt CJ in R v Small 51 explained the notion of "fault" in this context thus: The concept of fault should not, in my view, be interpreted narrowly. It is a well-known and frequently encountered phenomenon that some accused persons are psychologically quite unable to face up to the fact that their trial is to proceed. They put off applying for legal aid until it is far too late for their case to be prepared adequately. Very rarely could such conduct properly or fairly be characterised as a deliberate refusal or a wilful neglect on their part, yet the absence of legal representation can certainly be characterised as resulting from their fault. The criminal justice system would be crippled if such persons had either the absolute right to an adjournment in order finally to arrange legal representation or the right to a new trial if the trial is unsatisfactory as a result of the absence of such representation when they are solely responsible for that state of affairs.
In the later decision of Batiste, 52 Carruthers J affirmed Hunt CJ's comments and considered further that the notion of fault ought to be interpreted in a manner which was consistent with the view that there was a public interest in the administration of justice. With respect, this endorsement is also in conformity with the notion of balancing competing interests, referred to by Toohey J in Dietrich when exampling the "exceptional circumstances" which might justify the trial proceeding in the absence of representation. 53 In Karounos, 54 King CJ considered that in discharging the onus of establishing no fault on the accused's part, it was necessary for Karounos to show that all reasonable requirements of the Legal Services Commission had been complied with: Dietrich has established that the opportunity of legal representation, irrespective of means, is a necessary incident of a fair trial on a charge of a serious offence. It is, however, the responsibility of an accused person to arrange his own legal representation. He is not deprived of a fair trial if the lack of legal representation is due to the accused's failure to take appropriate measures to obtain legal representation. Those measures include utilisation of his own financial resources or, if they are insufficient to fund the trial, taking the necessary steps to obtain legal aid. If legal aid is sought the accused must comply with the reasonable requirements of the legal aid authority. 55 In that case the accused failed to satisfy the Commission as to his continuing eligibility for aid; there was "an apparent incongruity between the appellant's alleged indigence and his capacity to raise finance". 56 Aid was consequently withdrawn.
The cases have suggested that the examination of fault is limited to accused's conduct from the time of the charge: it is doubtful that any conduct remoter in time which lead to a lack of financial means will be relevant. In Connell (No 7J, 57 White J considered that the term "fault" extended to the conduct of an accused whose indigence was brought about by his voluntary disposition of substantial assets (sufficient to cover legal costs) to family and third parties with knowledge of the charges against him. His Honour considered that, even if he were incorrect in this categorisation, the conduct certainly constituted "exceptional circumstances"which justified the trial proceeding, despite the accused being unrepresented.
Recently in Craig v South Australia™ the High Court reconsidered the reference in Dietrich to the accused being unable to obtain legal representation "through no fault on his or her part" and unanimously said that these comments were not intended to indicate that: ...in every instance of misbehaviour, improvidence or other fault in the part of an accused which had contributed to his or her lack of representation must automatically preclude entitlement to a stay. In that regard, we agree with the view expressed by Olsson J in the Full Court that: ...what was in contemplation was a test which focused on the reasonableness of the conduct of the accused in all of the circumstances and excluded situations in which it could fairly be said that the accused, by his gratuitous and unreasonable conduct, had been the author of his own misfortune.

QUTLJ
The Dietrich Dilemma on the evidence and he had not erred in his understanding of Dietrich) and no error of law on the face of the record. Accordingly there was no ground on which the South Australian Full Court could base an order of certiorari. 60 This decision signals a strong reluctance on the part of the appeal court to review any error said to have been made by a trial judge in assessing the effect of the Dietrich principle in a given case: generally, no jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record will exist for the purposes of certiorari. 61

Exceptional circumstances 62
The accused must also show that no exceptional circumstances exist which would justify the trial proceeding, notwithstanding the accused's unrepresented status. Though it is not possible to develop a definitive list of "exceptional circumstances", the cases indicate that a balancing process is to be undertaken. For example, in Dietrich itself, Toohey J recognised that the fair trial requirement will usually be "the prevailing consideration" but stated: It is not possible to say that the trial judge must adjourn the trial for there are other considerations to be taken into account. Counsel for the applicant is not right in suggesting that only the interests of the accused are relevant. The situation of witnesses, particularly the victim, may need to be considered as well as the consequences of an adjournment for the presentation of the prosecution case and for the court's programme generally. But ordinarily the requirement of a fair trial will be the prevailing consideration. Therefore, in the absence of compelling circumstances, a trial should be adjourned where an indigent accused charged with a serious offence lacks legal representation, not due to any conduct in the accused's part. 63 If the trial proceeds without defence counsel in the absence of compelling circumstances, and the accused is convicted, the conviction will almost certainly be quashed.
Deane and Gaudron JJ also identified a category of exceptional circumstances where the accused "declines" or "persistently refuses or neglects to take advantage of" legal representation. 64 Invoking notions of "seriousness", Deane J further suggested that proceedings before a magistrate or judge, without a jury, for a nonserious offence will not offend the fair trial requirement. 65 The way in which Toohey J's competing interests might be relevant is exampled in Greer™ where the trial had already been adjourned several times at the accused's request. Kirby J in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal considered it legitimate for a trial judge to take into account case management considerations, there being nothing in the ICCPR, nor at common law, which "affords a person charged with a criminal offence the right to determine when he or she will be ready to face his trial". 67 In Greer, Carruthers J also referred to the "rights of the Crown (some nine witnesses were present at Court) and the public interest in the due administration of the criminal law." 68 Where the accused is a "highly experienced commercial lawyer", the question may arise whether the accused's ability, qualifications and experience are such as to constitute an exceptional circumstance and part of the balancing exercise might be to weigh that "ability, training and experience...against the relative complexity of the charges bought". 69

3.2."Legal Representation" 70
Fundamental to Dietrich is the importance of an accused having "legal representation" as an aspect of fair trial, particularly in the adversarial context. But what quality of representation is required? Are issues of adequacy and efficacy relevant? What regard is to be had to the accused's choice of lawyer? While the guidelines (in some cases statutory) under which the various Legal Aid Commissions (LACs) operate suggest that, to the extent reasonably practical, an applicant should obtain the services of the lawyer of his or her choice, 71 few would disagree with the observations of Barlow J in Cummings that "to avoid an unfair trial the applicant's legal representation need only be reasonable, it need not be 'Rolls Royce'". 72 But, again, how to assess "reasonableness"?
The tenor of the Dietrich majority was to the effect that "competent" representation is required. 73 But how does a court determine (before a trial has begun) the difficult question of whether the accused has competent representation: does the court hear argument concerning the seniority and relevant degree of experience and competence of the lawyers appointed? 74

QUTLJ
The Dietrich Dilemma J if a right existed to "demand counsel of a particular degree of experience and who can conduct the defence 'effectively'... how could such a right be monitored properly by the trial judge?". 75 These questions, avoided for some time post Dietrich, arose squarely for decision in AG (NSW) v Milat. 76 There the court was concerned with the application of Dietrich in a case where legal aid had been approved but there was a dispute about the type and adequacy of the funding package: in those circumstances could the accused show he was unable to obtain proper legal representation and that his trial would therefore be unfair?
The trial judge, Hunt CJ, ordered a stay of the accused's murder trial until funds were provided for the legal representation in accordance with a formulae set by his Honour. 77 Hunt CJ also considered that the difficulty and complexity of the case required that the (second) junior counsel in the case should have at least "ten years practice in the criminal jurisdiction". 78 On appeal, the NSW CCA unanimously set aside Hunt CJ's orders and said it was inconsistent with Dietrich for trial judges to ...embark upon a detailed exercise of assessing the relative degrees of competence and experience of lawyers potentially available to act for an accused person. Of course, lawyers vary in ability; accused persons obtain better representation from some lawyers than from others, just as trial judges obtain better assistance from some lawyers than from others. But the principle in Dietrich turns upon whether legal representation is unavailable to an indigent accused. It would be a serious criticism of a qualified lawyer, regularly practising in the criminal area, to say that representation by such a person was the equivalent of being relevantly unrepresented.
The principle in Dietrich concerns persons being, or about to be, tried for serious criminal offences who are to use the language of one of the leading judgments (at 311), "forced on unrepresented". It does not concern an accused person's supposed right to competent counsel: the existence of such a right was denied by the decision in Dietrich. That does not mean that questions of competence are entirely irrelevant to the application of the Dietrich principle. They are however, to be put in their proper perspective. It may well be that, in a given case, if the only representation available to the accused is manifestly inadequate to the task, it would be appropriate to regard the accused as being, for practical purposes, unrepresented. That however, is not the present case. 79  The Court posited that there could be cases where the legal aid offered was "so inadequate, or subject to such restrictive terms and conditions" that it would be appropriate to regard the accused as being relevantly unrepresented for Dietrich purposes. 80 Again, that was not the present case. Rather, the trial judge risked being drawn into a form of arbitration between Milat's lawyers and the Legal Aid Commission: Dietrich was not about the setting of reasonable rates of remuneration for defence lawyers. 81 Finally, it would not seem unreasonable that the accused's own particular circumstances are also relevant. Where the accused was a "highly experienced commercial lawyer", Barlow J suggested: In assessing what constitutes reasonable representation in this case, it must be borne in mind that by virtue of the applicant's qualifications and experience, he would be able to provide a solicitor and counsel with detailed and informed instructions. 82

Criminal Extension
It has been suggested that Dietrich 1 s focus on representation at trial "encourages a fundamental misunderstanding of our criminal justice process", 83 a process which actually emphasises pre-trial procedures and which generates guilty pleas that commonly resolve criminal cases.
It is time to shift the focus from the jury trial, which is used in only a tiny proportion of criminal matters, to the pre-trial process, the site which actually determines the fate of most accused persons. As Sallmann and Willis have written: The perception of the jury trial as the stage where the only really important decisions are made is often accompanied by a view of criminal investigation as exploratory, procedural, mechanical, introductory...Nothing could be further from the truth, and in fact a great many persons' convictions are signed, sealed and delivered in the police station during the criminal investigation process. 84 That criminal suspects should have access to legal representation at pre-trial investigatory stages as a logical extension of any right to legal representation at trial (or in a precautionary way to ensure the efficacy of that later representation),

QUTLJ
The Dietrich Dilemma has been the subject of much reform work in recent times, the most influential legislative model for which is clearly the PACE Act 1984 (UK). 85 Dietrich was concerned with the requirements for fair trial and the undoubted desirability of (competent) legal representation in the criminal trial. The very valid rationales for trial representation are almost indistinguishable from those that might be fairly put in relation to the desirability of legal representation at the pre-trial stage and would accord with affirmations to be found in international human rights documents: The right to consult a lawyer is ... also a central feature of contemporary international statements of human rights. The right is pivotal in assuring so far as possible that both those detained and those detaining them act in accordance with the law. It recognises the reality that an individual who is arrested or detained is ordinarily at a significant disadvantage in relation to the informed and coercive powers available to the State. Access to counsel is a means of reducing that imbalance and of ensuring that anyone arrested or detained is treated fairly in the criminal process. In that regard the right to a lawyer facilitates access to knowledge and also allows for representation by an independent intermediary. 86 Nevertheless, the emphasis post-Dietrich has very much been to focus on the criminal trial: Dietrich has no application to anything that precedes the trial nor to the appeal after it. Indeed shortly after Dietrich, the Tasmanian Supreme Court in R v Helfenbaum 9,1 discharged an order nisi staying committal proceedings on the basis of lack of representation and denial of legal aid, and distinguished the case because no stay was sought of the prosecutor's "trial", but only of the "preliminary hearing". 88 Helfenbaum 1 s finding that Dietrich was inapplicable to committal proceedings was subsequently confirmed in Fuller v Field and South Australia: 89 committal proceedings do not produce the same serious consequences as does a trial.
The High Court in Canellis, 90 rejecting any extension of Dietrich that required the provision of legal representation for witnesses before a statutory inquiry, made the position crystal clear: There is no suggestion in the majority judgements that a court could exercise a similar jurisdiction in civil proceedings or in committal proceedings; nor do they suggest that such a jurisdiction could be exercised in favour of an indigent person charged with a criminal offence which is other than serious. Furthermore, and this is of decisive importance in the present case, the principle in Dietrich is concerned with the right to a fair trial of a party to criminal proceedings; the principle has nothing at all to say about the protection of the interests of a witness, let alone the protection of the interests of a witness at an inquiry. 91 Canellis further found that, unlike a court, an inquiry or a tribunal has no "inherent jurisdiction" to be exercised in the witness's favour; nor do the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice applicable to an inquiry require that it be stayed until legal representation is secured for a witness, even a witness against whom serious and adverse findings might be made. 92 These considerations have been applied equally to deny a witness before a Royal Commission any relief. 93 Any residual questions as to the criminal scope of Dietrich were resolutely answered in Johns v R: 94 Dietrich also did not affect the hearing of an appeal with an unrepresented appellant. Johns had been represented at trial but was refused legal aid for his appeal. He argued that the appeal was simply a continuation of the trial and that, accordingly, as he had exhausted all avenues for obtaining legal representation, his appeal should be upheld and his conviction set aside. The West Australian Court of Appeal rejected that argument, restating that Dietrich does not call for representation in every case: it "certainly does not extend to the grant of legal representation in the case of an appeal" and, in any event, the only power available to the appeal court, if it were minded to grant a remedy, would be to adjourn the appeal so that the appellant could seek the services of counsel without charge. 95 This restrictive interpretation of the Dietrich safeguard stands in stark contrast to a number of recent decisions in the European Court of Human Rights which have interpreted the guarantees of Art 6 ECHR as requiring publicly funded assistance in criminal appeals. 96

Civil Extension
Canellis made it plain that the Dietrich principle only assists a party to criminal proceedings and that the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness do not require the provision of legal representation in administrative inquiries or proceedings. Consequently, claims of entitlement to publicly funded legal assistance have been rejected, for example, at the early stages of investigation of a claim to refugee status, 97 before the Refugee Review Tribunal, 98 before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding objections to taxation assessments, 99 and in circumstances where the applicant claimed he had been denied the opportunity to properly defend himself before a Disciplinary Appeals Committee. 100 Claims that the Dietrich principle guarantees adequate legal representation in bankruptcy proceedings have been similarly unsuccesssful. In Williams v Official TYustee, 101 the Full Federal Court said: Dietrich was a criminal case involving the prosecution of an accused who was not represented at all. The judges of the court make it quite clear that they are dealing with the criminal justice system, not with the civil justice system. Thus Mason CJ and McHugh J commence their discussion of the right of an accused to a fair trial by saying that the right of an accused to receive a fair trial according to law is a fundamental element of "our criminal justice system". Reference may also be made to the judgement of Deane J...where he says that an accused is brought involuntarily to the field in which he is required to answer a charge of serious crime.
The position of Dietrich-type applications in relation to family law matters deserves some special attention, though the result has been disappointingly similar. In decisions prior to Dietrich, the Family Court had already identified a reduced level of legal aid funding for family law matters and had expressed concern that unrepresented parties might not receive a fair trial: Despite increased Commonwealth funding for legal aid, recent years have seen a sharp contraction in legal aid for family law matters and a substantial increase in legal aid for criminal matters. While we recognise the conflicting pressures on legal aid authorities, we think that the time has come to call into question the continued diminution of aid to parties in family law matters. In the present case, for example, the husband is in receipt of Workcare payments and the wife social security benefits. Neither can speak English. The welfare of a child is involved. The husband was represented both at the trial and on appeal, and the wife was not. The likelihood of an injustice occurring was greatly exacerbated by her lack of representation and in fact we have found that an injustice did occur in that she was unable to properly present her case. 102 As noted by the Australian Law Reform Commission, Equality Before the Law: Justice for Women, the Dietrich decision clearly endorses and may exacerbate the existent legal aid priority accorded to criminal matters: at the very least it makes it unlikely that scarce dollars will be channelled away from criminal law to family or other civil law matters. 103 These issues will be discussed further below.
Against this background, the Family Court was not quick to concede the inapplicability of the Dietrich principle. For example, in Andrews v Andrews, 104 the father was not represented at trial, and, on appeal, referred to Dietrich. Though Baker J in the Full Court was cognisant of the "direct distinction to be drawn between a person not being represented in a criminal trial and a person not being represented...in the Family Court", Nicholson CJ was not prepared to make any concluded comment on the effect of Dietrich in the Family Court "since that [would] undoubtedly be a matter of full argument in this court in the future." The Family Court has expressed itself as "increasingly conscious" 105 of the difficulties which confront both the Court and the parties where one or both litigant(s) appear(s) in person, but it is now clear that Dietrich, so far as it provides positively for representation in the criminal courts, has no application in the Family Court, and that self-representation, though a disadvantage, does not represent a justification for a retrial in itself. 106 Consequently, the predicament of a pre-Dietrich trial judge, who was required to shoulder all the additional responsibilities associated with an unrepresented accused, has simply become an increased dilemma for the Family Court. As the High Court has laid down, a frequent consequence of self-representation is that the Court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which might be "obfuscated by their own advocacy". 107 Little wonder then that the call has been made for a reordering of legal aid priorities, particularly with a view to ensuring the adequacy and fairness of legal assistance provided to custodial and contact parents in the full range of contact cases. 108 Such a move would be instrumental in redressing the gender imbalance that currently exists in the allocation of litigation legal aid (discussed below). It would also be in conformity with the obligations to provide legal representation espoused by the international instruments, where there has been recognition of a limited right to funded counsel in civil matters. For example, in Airey v Ireland, 109 Airey complained that she was unable to proceed with her divorce proceedings because she could not afford counsel and legal aid was not available in divorce cases. It was held that the "right of access" to court guaranteed in Art 6(1) ECHR, although it did not imply the right to free legal aid in the determination of the individual's civil rights and obligations (in contrast to the Art 6(3)(c) right in relation to criminal proceedings but which is subject to limitations), may sometimes ... compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for an effective access to court either because legal representation is rendered compulsory, as is done by the domestic law of certain Contracting States for various types of litigation, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case. 110 The right in Art 6(1) was held to be one that is '"practical and effective' and not merely 'theoretical and illusory'" 111 and the right was violated in Airey's case. Following that decision, the Government of Ireland made legal aid available in divorce cases and took steps to simplify divorce procedure and reduce costs. 112 In Australia in the meantime, in one area at least, the Family Court has taken matters into its own hands. InReK, 113 the Full Family Court set out a non-exhaustive but detailed list of guidelines for the appointment of separate representatives for children pursuant to s 65 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). In so doing the Court had specific regard to the requirements of Arts 9 and 12 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and stated that the guidelines proposed were not only consistent with those requirements but "further [those] objects". 114 Prior to the decision in Re K, separate representation was only ordered in the most serious of cases and in the vast majority of cases no representative for the child was appointed. 115 It is conceivable that a significant number of custody cases would come within at least one, if not more,

QUTLJ
The Dietrich Dilemma Dietrich effectively forces governments either to accept the mediocre position that certain serious criminal trials may be stayed indefinitely or to assume an obligation to fund the criminal defence in serious cases, thus affecting the legal aid available for other law types (such as family) in an environment where the shrinking legal aid dollar is subject to ever increasing demand. 120 What is then called into question is the validity of the relative seriousness (and funding priority) that has traditionally been accorded criminal litigation legal aid, to the detriment of other law type aid. In Dietrich, the Court discussed extensively the rationales for considering representation in serious criminal matters as essential for a fair trial, yet this discussion occurred without regard to other areas of law where litigation legal aid may also be essential, and without reference to the fact that the decision may have had an engendered impact by reason of the simple statistical fact that more men commit crime (including serious crime) than women. As put by the ALRC when discussing the Dietrich decision: No-one put the case that women might be disadvantaged by the decision. Given the finite resources available for legal aid, an intervenor on behalf of women may have made a significant difference to the decision, or the way in which the reasons for the decision were framed. 121 The particular priority accorded to legal representation in crime is rationalised under two heads. 122 The first invokes liberalist notions of equality, fairness and justice and seeks to redress the obvious disparity of resources that occurs when State versus accused. However this inequality of resources is also present in other, non-criminal, proceedings: social security and refugee cases, for example. 123 A second and related justification is the seriousness of the consequence which faces an accused in the Dietrich circumstances: the potential for (long-term) imprisonment. However, again, other non-criminal or less serious criminal cases may also have very serious consequences: for example, loss of a sole parent pension; loss of custody of one's children; going to jail for a minor (not serious) crime which may result in loss of children; protection from partner violence; loss of a job resulting in a family's eviction consequent on loss of income and so on. 124