Sordini, Danilo v Wilcox, Stuart Francis & Ors [1983] FCA 58

e DISTRICT REGISTRY

v he a cs wat 1 IN THE 4FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. A.C.T. G.59 of 1982

GENERAL» DIVISION ———E eee

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: DANILO SORDINI Appellant AND: STUART FRANCIS WILCOX,

ALAN ANTHONY HARDIMAN, STANEORD BRUCE JUDDERY , and LEGAL AID COMMISSION fA.C.T.)-

Coram: Blackburn, Woodward, Keely JJ.

Date: 7 April 1983

BLACKBURN J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Woodward J. I agree in the result proposed by him, and with much that he says, but (with respect) not with all of it. I reach the same conclusion in a somwhat different way, and I wish to say something for myself about some aspects of this appeal.

The appellant, who had been committed for trial ona charge of murder, asked the Legal Aid Commission pursuant to the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977 (''the Ordinance") to assign his case to the solicitor and junior counsel who had appeared for him at the unquest and the committal proceedings, and to leading counsel of his choice. The Director of the Legal Aid Commission decided to refuse this request and to assign the case to the Public Defender, and when the Director, upon reconsideration, refused to change thzs decision, the decision was, upon the appellant's request, referred to the Review Committec under s.56(3) of the Ordinance for review. The Committee affirmed the Director's decision, and the appellant then sought review by this Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The learnea judge of first instance dismissed the application for review with costs, and the appellant appeals.

The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Woodunard J.

The problem posed before the Review Committee was whether the appellant's case should be assigned to private practitioners or to officers of the Legal Aid Commission. Section 11 of the Ordinance requires that the Commission should determine "guide- lines" (what used to be called principles) for the solution of this kind of problem. Guidelines so determined were in evidence before us. The relevant guideline was No. 4, which reads, as