Dietrich was charged with drug trafficking offenses under the Customs Act 1901. He claimed he could not afford legal representation and requested a stay in proceedings to obtain counsel, but this was denied. On appeal, the High Court considered whether Dietrich had a right to legal representation given he faced serious charges but could not afford a lawyer. The Court acquitted Dietrich of one charge but upheld his conviction on other charges, finding the trial court did not have the power to appoint counsel but could have stayed proceedings to allow Dietrich to obtain representation.

1. LWZ115 Legal Process
Answer:
Issues
Whether Dietrich is liable for the drugs trafficking according to the provisions of the
Customs Act?
Whether Dietrich has a fair legal trial for defending himself being involved in a serious
offence?
Whether Dietrich will directly be referred to as accused without the involvement of legal
representation?
Rule
Section 233 b (1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 states about the smuggling as well as unlawful
importation along with exportation[1]. In the provisions it is stated that a person should not
import as well as export such goods that are prohibited, a person should not be liable for
smuggling of such goods. A person should not in an unlawful manner have possession of any
smuggling goods. Section (1AA) states that if a person involves in any action prescribed
above then the person will be punishable under such offence and such kind of offence
involves a person under strict liability. The Act states that strict liability is mentioned in
Section 6.1 of the Criminal Code[2]. It involves the person who does not have any
reasonable excuse with respect to the smuggling of prohibited goods.
The South Australian Criminal Law (Legal Representation) Act 2002 states that give
permission to the court for seizing the assets of the defendant for preventing the false
claims prescribed in the Dietrich principle. Section 69(3) of the Judiciary Act 1903[3]
describes legal aid, as well as an application, which was also filed under such section. In the
instance of Powell v Alabama (1932)[4] which is considered a landmark in the US where the
decision was reversed by the court and held that counsel must be provided to defendants
that are under capital trials. There is the involvement of capital punishment and legal
representation is to be provided when the defendant is poor and not able to afford it for
themselves. Also, in Gideon v Wainwright (1963)[5], the fourteenth amendment was made
by the court that establish the right of people to get counsel during criminal investigations.
Application

2. In Australia, there is a customary provision regarding forcing a person that does not have
the capability to afford the legal aid for the court trial to make them defend in the court. The
case involves a serious crime where Dietrich was charged with an offence that involves four
counts. Where the basic and first three counts are related to importation or it can be said
that he has possession of the goods namely heroin in large quantity. The fourth charge
against him was regarding possession of a separate quantity of heroin. Dietrich has claimed
that heroin does not belong to him and the police are trying to make him an offender.
Dietrich was charged and was triable in the Country Court regarding the trafficking offence.
He has made a request regarding legal representation to the Legal Aid Commission and also,
and he make an application to the Supreme Court but his application was dismissed. Due to
this he got no legal representation for the trial in court and he was facing several problems
for his own defence. Two courts have made an allegation against them for importation while
in the third as well as final no importation charges were marked against him. Also, no guilty
was pleaded by Dietrich but the jury has found them guilty of an offence that was in
violation of the Customs Act 1901. Later he got sentenced with respect to seven years of
imprisonment due to which he has made an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Such
court has refused in hearing the appeal filed by him due to which he has obtained special
leave with respect to the High Court.
In the High Court, he was legally represented by David Grace. Dietrich has argued in the
court that he was in need of counsel through the involvement of public expense as he was
convicted of a serious crime. Also, judges from the previous court should have stayed the
proceedings of the trial so that he gets the opportunity to obtain counsel for himself. There
is the involvement of Common Law tradition as every person is liable to get a fair trial as it
is considered right. Several sources of law were suggested by Dietrich that are countable
under the right of counsel, the first involves Section 397 of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958[6]
which has been repealed now. The provision states that every person who is accused of an
offence shall be admitted when the case has been closed for the purpose of the prosecution
to provide the full answer to every question as well as defence received through legal
representation. The second source is obligations involved related to international law.
under Article 14(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[7] where the
person who is accused should be provided with legal aid in such circumstances where there
is the involvement of interest in justice. The third source is the establishment of an
international precedent that involves a similar situation. With reference to the above cases,
such a source has been defined by him.
Conclusion
The applicant got convicted regarding such an offence but he got acquitted of the fourth
offence reason that the Court of Criminal Appeal has made his application dismissed. The
ratio decidendi regarding the decision of the case does not provide the power to the court to
appoint a legal representative for the defendant. As such function is in the hand of the legal

3. aid agencies. The obiter dictum concerning the case is the alignment of the provision of the
United States with the Australian legal system. There were two judges namely Brennan as
well as Dawson that have dissenting judgment and stated that the judges must make use of
their powers and not put pressure upon the legal aid agencies and the judges should make
use of their power for adjourning the trials. Therefore, Dietrich had got a punishment of 30
years and in 2014 the appeal has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Bibliography
Journal Articles
Lee, Ivan, "Clarity In The Penal Code Definition Of Strict Liability" [2021] SSRN Electronic
Journal
Martin, Madalynn, "United States V. Bryant" (2019) 44(1) American Indian Law Review
Podgor, Ellen S, "Bruce Jacob: A Leading Voice In Public Defense" (2018) 48 Stetson L. Rev
Ulbrick, Madeleine, Asher Flynn and Danielle Tyson, "An Argument For Diminished
Culpability Manslaughter: Responding To Gaps In Victorian Homicide Law" (2019)
45(1) Monash University Law Review
Websites
AUSTLII, "CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 233Smuggling And Unlawful Importation And
Exportation", Www5.Austlii.Edu.Au (Webpage, 2021)
https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s233.html
Canadian Civil Liability Association, "Summary: International Covenant On Civil And
Political Rights (Iccpr", (Webpage, 2015) https://ccla.org/privacy/surveillance-and-
privacy/summary-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights-iccpr/
Refworld, "Judiciary Act 1903", Refworld.Org (Webpage, 2022)
https://www.refworld.org/cgi-
bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=54f5e1d84
Case law
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
Powell v Alabama (1932)
Legislation

4. Criminal Law (Legal Representation) Act 2002
Customs Act 1901
Victorian Crimes Act 1958