Plea doesn’t suit court
Prisoner sought $5000 to fight his case
A PRISONER charged with bashing two guards at Lara’s Barwon Prison has asked a judge for a $5000 cheque so he can buy a new suit and represent himself in court.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is due to stand trial in the County Court over allegations he attacked the guards.
He has not sought legal representation through Victorian Legal Aid, saying he can do the job himself, but needs some cash so he could look sharp to run his case.
He also wanted the cash to fund an expert medical witness and to pay for stationery and phone calls.
The man wanted his trial judge to order VLA to give him $5000 after it refused.
VLA told the court it had not “received any request for funding for legal representation”, but “did receive a letter . . . asking for those items that he has already specified today; clothing, expert witness, stationery, etc”.
“I might get away with my charm half the time, but I don’t think it’s going to suffice in a criminal trial where looks and appearances from jury members looking on . . . aren’t going to have the same effect as (prosecuting counsel) here with the full power of the state and the government and his assistant in his $5000 suit, shirt and tie and books and all that at the bar table, with me in the dock in greys and whites,” the man argued.
“And . . . a suitable amount of money for stationery, so I can put money on the phone, correspond with people on the outside, you know friends and/ or family to be able to assist me with my case, ’cause I’m representing myself. You know, I find it hard to buy coffee and other things and all I need all I want is just what’s fair.
“You know, that’s what I’m fighting for. I’m just fighting for what’s fair, for me to receive a trial.”
His bold request was knocked back by the man’s trial judge, but undeterred, he took his fight for fairness to the state’s top court.
This week the Court of Appeal also rejected the request finding it was without merit.
“Plainly, the judge was correct. Read in context, the expression ‘legal representation’ embraces only the process by which legal practitioners represent the accused facing trial for an indictable offence. It is not broad enough to embrace the provision of clothes, stationery . . . or an expert witness,” Justices David Beach and Phillip Priest ruled.