Dietrich v The Queen

The applicant, Dietrich, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning the right of an indigent accused to have legal representation at public expense during a trial. The core of the dispute revolved around whether existing High Court precedent, specifically principles enunciated in *McInnis v The Queen*, should be reconsidered regarding the provision of counsel for those unable to afford it.

The legal issues before the Court included whether an indigent accused has a right to legal representation at public expense, and if so, what the parameters and machinery for implementing such a right should be. The applicant contended that the principles in *McInnis* should be re-examined, arguing that an accused does not have a right to counsel at public expense. The applicant further submitted that the right to legal assistance, where the interests of justice require it and the accused lacks sufficient means, is enshrined in Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is annexed to the *Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986* (Cth).

The Court considered the submission that the interests of justice necessitate the appointment of counsel for indigent accused in serious indictable matters. The applicant argued that this right should be implemented by trial judges ordering stays of proceedings until legal representation is provided, and that the limit on public expense should be the engagement of competent counsel. The Court also grappled with the question of why such representation should be at public expense.