There is no injustice in having to do without a lawyer in a criminal trial. Rodney Michael Petricevic, charged with criminal offences following the collapse of Bridgecorp, claims to be broke and unable to afford a lawyer.
Attempts to stop these prosecutions failed when the High Court ruled there was no breach of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 should Mr Petricevic be forced to defend himself without legal representation.
The criminal trial will focus on allegations that Mr Petricevic took money from his companies without justification. Creditors suspect substantial sums were transferred to a family trust for the benefit of his wife and children. Mr Petricevic claims to have no assets. He was bankrupted in August 2008. His application for legal aid was refused on the basis that his wife could provide funds given that she is a beneficiary of the family trust. Legal aid rules treat assets available to a spouse as financial resources available to her husband.
The Court said that while the Bill of Rights Act says an accused is entitled to a lawyer, the State does not guarantee to pay for a lawyer.
A trial does not become unfair unless the accused cannot conduct his own defence because of legal complexities arising during the trial. Justice Venning ruled that was unlikely to happen in this case. Mr Petricevic has a substantial background in business, was the managing director of a public company and can be expected to be very familiar with documents which will feature as evidence in the trial.
R. v. Petricevic – High Court (12.07.11)
07.11.001