Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Delay update ... "Extraordinary and excessive" delay - by the litigants ... Contest on costs ... Getting to grips with Qld industrial law takes time ... What is a "worker"? ... What is an "injury"? ... Justice Jenni frigging around ... Slow grind for earnest Circuiteer ... From judges' associate Ginger Snatch ... Read more >>

 

Politics Media Law Society


A biopsy on bias ... Darryl Rangiah and Oscar Wilde … A unity ticket … White flags at Ultimo … The Hyphen … BBC also on the ropes … Cease – FIRE … Why is Murdoch’s bias always wrong about everything? ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

From the cutting room floor...Handsy Heydon goes to Perth ... Celebrity tour ... Conferenceville ... Dicey's job application speech from 2002 ... Other High Court judges mocked as "vegetables" ... Mason CJ ridiculed ... Speech bowdlerised for public consumption ... Courage of conviction MIA ... From our National Affairs Correspondent ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


The Segal Report on combatting antisemitism ... Sweeping recommendations ... In full >> 

Justinian's Bloggers

London Calling ... Sizzling in the Old Dart ... Story of the complaining law graduate ... Tattle Life brought to book ... Beckham family feud over royal gong ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt's postcard ... Read more >> 

"If there’s one family that hasn’t profited off politics, it's the Trump family."

Eric Trump, reported in the Financial Times, June 27, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Zeitgeist litigation ... Matt Collins KC on live-streaming of high-profile trials ... Social media nightmare ... Abuse of barristers ... Chilling emails ... Trials as a form of public entertainment ... Courts sleepwalking into a dangerous zone ... Framework needed to balance competing interests ... Paper delivered to Australian Lawyers Alliance Conference ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

The Circumlocution Office ... "Reform" of legal fees - four centuries of chicanery ... Tulkinghorn awards prizes for "reforms" that increase legal costs ... Jacking-up revenue by replacing "necessary or proper" costs with "fair and reasonable" costs ... From Justinian's Archive, January 17, 2012 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Vintage Lionel Murphy | Main | The man who replaced Barwick »
Saturday
Jan012000

Melbourne barristers off the hook

It's 1981 and the NSW bar's ethics committee has dismissed suggestions from Athol Moffitt that two Melbourne barristers weren't plying their trade in accordance with the high standards of the Sydney bar ... Suggestions that the trial was protracted by irrelevancies and the use of extreme language - thrown out by the ethics inspectors ... Crushing blow for Court of Criminal Appeal ... From Justinian's Déjà Vu department 

Robert Richter: no irrelevancies

Two Melbourne barristers, Robert Richter and R. van de Weil, who in early 1979 appeared in the NSW District Court for two accused in a drug case, have been cleared by the ethics committee of the NSW Bar Association.

The investigation by the committee followed remarks by Moffitt P when delivering the judgment of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in Reg v Niblett and Reg v Lockman.

The remarks from the bench raised a number of issues concerning defence counsel Richter and van de Weil, who are both admitted at the Sydney bar, including protracting the trial by irrelevancies, making serious allegations against the police without any evidentiary support or corroboration from the statements of the accused, and pursuing these allegations with the use of extreme language.

It was also suggested that the accused had received a degree of lawyer coaching or instruction.

The ethics committee studied transcripts, reports of the trial judge (Ward DCJ), obtained the comments on the matters raised by the Court of Criminal Appeal from the two counsel, and questioned the instructing solicitor.

In a recent letter to the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Registrar of the NSW Bar Association, Captain W. F. Cook, wrote:

"The association cannot find that the trial was protracted by irrelevancies or that the allegations raised were couched in extravagant terms or were made irresponsibly by either of the unsworn statements. Nor in the association's view does the evidence support a finding that counsel sought to obtain a restrospective carte blanche justification from the unsworn statements for their cross-examination of the Crown witnesses ... 

"Accordingly, the association has decided to take no further action in relation to the matters raised by the Court of Criminal Appeal." 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.