I had a court hearing in the High Court of Australia, for a special leave hearing to appeal against the wrongful conviction which grieved me. I prepared my written speech for the hearing in the limited 20 minutes argument time. I was self represeted to criticise judicial bias leading the injustce, the errors of law and wrongful conviction in my written oral submission. However, the High Court used tricky tactics prevented me to read my written submission to the High Court putting my submission to the Court and the public fully. Then, unethically stopped me citing the doctrine of the precedent about what I wanted to say about the errors of law. Also the High Court in a attemt to stop me saying more criticism by failing to comply with rule of the High ourt using the double standard of law against me to deprive further 5 minutes argument time off me that I entitled. Finally, the High Court, substantially altered and concealed many key words relating these issues.
2006-12-18 19:55:20 · 4 answers · asked by robert 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
i don't no the exact problem but i can smell little bit discrimination in it.
2006-12-20 19:48:55 · answer #1 · answered by dadjone 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's why lawyers have a job. I guess barrister is the term you're used to. Based on what you wrote, the High Court did not alter or conceal anything in the published transcript. There are procedural rules and you likely ran afoul of them. That's why you were cut off. And if you were cut off, anything you say after that can be stricken from the record. If it's missing from the transcript, that's probably what happened.
Oral arguments before a High Court is never easy. First of all, you'll never get through any prepared speech because the judges will throw too many twists and turns your way. You have to know how to follow the rules while directing the argument back the way you want. Easier said than done, which is why there are people who are paid a lot of money to do this. Does this make it harder for people who lack the financial resources to hire a solicitor/barrister? Yes. But that's the system. In the US, we have gov't attorneys who represent you in criminal matters. However, after certain procedural steps have passed (meaning different levels of court where you lose), they can stop representing you even if you want them to keep trying.
2006-12-19 04:15:41 · answer #2 · answered by Linkin 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you know what they say. a person who represents themselves has a fool for a client...
seriously, i agree that if it was anything like this mess, they just edited it to make sense of it. There are strict guidelines to appearances in the high court - and if you didnt know them you should have sought advice. If noone was willing to give you any advice maybe that should have been a warning that you didnt have a case that was likely to win.
2006-12-21 20:21:43 · answer #3 · answered by Minerva 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If your transcript was as garbled as this question is, they probably tried to edit it to make sense.
They say anyone that represents themselves in court has a fool for a client. Get a lawyer.
2006-12-19 04:07:18 · answer #4 · answered by Answer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋