Anti-Mathmite said:Legal aid? That isn't a way of accessing justice.
I put Courts, ICAC and Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Anti-Mathmite said:In Dietrich Vs The queen, it was NOT shown. The case law determined that it is not an automatic right, and legal aid is not a means of accessing justice. If it were, then you could say that a lawyer is a means of accessing justice.
They mean a realm where justice can be dispensed; legal aid is not, it only assists poor wankers in their cases. They are looking for a "gavel" entity (those that can dispense justice). They mean your tribunals, courts & commissions. They mean a "power point" - if you "plug-in" to an entity, can it dispense justice to you?
if you "Plug-in" to Legal aid, does IT dispense justice? No.
isn't that statement kinda contradictory in itself?Anti-Mathmite said:The case law determined that it is not an automatic right, and legal aid is not a means of accessing justice. If it were, then you could say that a lawyer is a means of accessing justice.
I put these down also (well not legal aid as such, but natural justice and the rule of law). The thing I would personally say to the people who put down like courts, tribunals etc for their three examples is that they are all the same thing. I put them down simply as one way that justice could be achieved.mel20588 said:well i put the doctrine of natural justice, rule of law and legal aid as it provides equality and there for access to justice