On the 17th of December 1986, Olaf Dietrich arrived in Melbourne from a flight from Thailand and was charged the next day with four counts of drug trafficking. He was alleged to have swallowed 70 grams of heroin in small packets in attempt to smuggle them through customs. Olaf Dietrich was found, in his first trial, guilty by a jury of importing no less than a trafficable amount of heroin as pursuant to section 233B of the Customs Act of 1901. Dietrich at first alleged that the drugs had been planted by the police. He was found guilty of two other counts and sentenced in the Victorian County Court. He plead not guilty for all counts he was originally indicted for. Yet, during the trial process Dietrich believed that he had the right to counsel,
…show more content…
In the judgement of Mason CJ and McHugh J, it was said that a “ trial judge who is faced with an application for an adjournment or a stay by an indigent accused charged with a serious offence [...] the trial in such a case should be adjourned, postponed or stayed until legal representation is available. The judgement also stated that “an accused has the right to a fair trial and that, depending on all the circumstances of the particular case, lack of representation may mean that an accused is unable to receive, or did not receive, a fair trial. “ Moreover, the judgement of Deane and Gaudron suggested that the right to receive counsel was found in the Constitution, specifically Chapter Three which requires that ‘judicial process and fairness be observed.’ However, both Justice Brennan and Justice Dawson dissented, stating that it would unjust for judges to adjourn or stay trial due to the pressures it would place on legal aid agencies. For Dietrich, the outcome of the High Court case meant that without the legal representation he had required for the trial and due to the trial judge’s failure to grant an adjournment, a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Resultantly, the verdict of the original trial was overturned and it was ordered that a retrial take
In the judgement of Mason CJ and McHugh J, it was said that a “ trial judge who is faced with an application for an adjournment or a stay by an indigent accused charged with a serious offence [...] the trial in such a case should be adjourned, postponed or stayed until legal representation is available. The judgement also stated that “an accused has the right to a fair trial and that, depending on all the circumstances of the particular case, lack of representation may mean that an accused is unable to receive, or did not receive, a fair trial. “ Moreover, the judgement of Deane and Gaudron suggested that the right to receive counsel was found in the Constitution, specifically Chapter Three which requires that ‘judicial process and fairness be observed.’ However, both Justice Brennan and Justice Dawson dissented, stating that it would unjust for judges to adjourn or stay trial due to the pressures it would place on legal aid agencies. For Dietrich, the outcome of the High Court case meant that without the legal representation he had required for the trial and due to the trial judge’s failure to grant an adjournment, a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Resultantly, the verdict of the original trial was overturned and it was ordered that a retrial take