Issue-
In this case, there is an issue surrounding whether Mr. Kalajzich is guilty of murdering his wife Megan Kalajzich on the 27th of May 1998. It had been found that he had intended to murder her and it occurred as he attempted to discharge a loaded gun. There were two appeals made to the Court of Appeal by Mr. Kalajzich, which was an appeal against his conviction, and the other an appeal for special leave. Both appeals were dismissed/refused by the Court. In addition, two appeals made to the Court of Appeal Mr. Kalajzich applied to the Supreme Court under section 474 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was also refused. Additionally, witnesses have appealed and want publicly funded legal representation as well as Mr. Kalajzich as he believes without it there would be no fair trial because he could not afford it. The common law; however; does not recognize a right of an accused to be funded by public representation.
Rule- …show more content…
Dietrich was charged with numerous drug offenses and had exhausted all avenues for legal assistance to plea not guilty but eventually, due to all appeals being refused by the Victorian County he was unrepresented in his court trial and raised concerns about the case being an unfair trial. About NSW v Canellis the defendant was convicted of murdering his wife Megan, with intent, attempting to discharge a loaded gun. The defendant’s appeals for special leave were refused as well as an application to the Supreme Court under s474 of the