R v Pinkstone

This case involved an application by Anthony John Pinkstone to stay the proceedings on an indictment against him permanently or, alternatively, temporarily. The application was based on the principle articulated in Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292, which held that an indigent accused charged with a serious offence has no right to the provision of counsel at public expense, but that the trial should proceed without representation only in exceptional cases. The applicant argued that he was indigent, unable to obtain legal representation, and that his inability was not due to any fault on his part. The court heard evidence from the applicant and cross-examined him on his affidavit. The court found that the applicant had failed to prove that he was indigent and had not genuinely endeavoured to pursue his application for legal aid. The application for a stay of the indictment was dismissed, but the trial was adjourned for two weeks to allow the applicant to pursue legal aid and potentially obtain legal representation.