Access to Justice
-
This case note explains the High Court’s landmark decision in Dietrich v The Queen, which established that an accused facing a serious criminal charge should not be tried without legal representation unless exceptional circumstances exist. It highlights the case’s significance for the right to a fair trial, access to justice, and judicial discretion in staying proceedings to ensure fairness.
-
This case study explores the High Court’s ruling in Isbester v Knox City Council, where apprehended bias was found because the same council officer acted as both investigator/prosecutor and decision‑maker. It illustrates how procedural fairness and impartiality are essential components of access to justice, ensuring that administrative decisions are made independently and without conflicts of interest.
-
This case study examines the Victorian Supreme Court’s decision in Ho v Greater Dandenong City Council, where the council’s failure to consider relevant matters led to its decision being set aside. It shows how lawful, transparent administrative decision‑making is essential to access to justice, ensuring individuals can challenge government actions and obtain fair, reasoned outcomes.
-
This case study outlines the Local Court proceedings involving comedian Jimbo Bazoobi and his goat, Gary, after a charge of destroying vegetation in Sydney’s CBD was dismissed. It highlights how clear laws, fair hearings, and the ability to challenge government action in court are essential to access to justice, even in minor or unusual matters.
Gary the Goat
Overview
Comedian James Dezarnaulds a.k.a Jimbo Bazoobi was issued a $440 fine on August 22 2013 after his goat, Gary, was seen by police eating grass outside the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney.
The fine was for damaging vegetation without authority. Jimbo appealed the fine and a date was set for a court hearing.
Wishing to avoid court Jimbo wrote to the Commander of the Rocks police station asking for the fine to be dropped. In his letter Jimbo claimed that he appealed the fine because;
a) “it wasn’t me, it was my goat” and;
b) “My goat wasn’t damaging vegetation.
He was simply taking the top off some grass plust [sic] some leaves off some bushes (next to some council workers with a lawnmower and clippers who were doing the same thing.)”The case proceeded to court and the Magistrate ruled in favour of Jimbo and Gary.
The Magistrate said that while Gary did eat plants it could not be proved that Jimbo had brought Gary to the MCA with the intention of vandalising the plants or that Jimbo put Gary up to the act.
Gary’s lawyer said that police had issued the wrong infringement notice as the fine issued applied to people and not to goats.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that “The goat, who was met by a throng of reporters outside court, was not required to give evidence and made no comment on the verdict.”
This case highlights the rule of law principle of access to justice as Jimbo and Gary utilised the appeals system to seek justice.
Gary the Goat Case – The Use of Arbitrary Power
In his letter to the police Jimbo claimed that “I was surrounded by Shane and about four other police officers … Shane immediately started telling me that I’d broken a whole lot of laws. I then asked,’ well can you name one?’ … He then spent over an hour detaining me while he tried to tell me what law I’d broken … He couldn’t get me for an out of control animal because my goat wasn’t out of control. He couldn’t get me for not having it on a leash because it wasn’t a dog …
In the end he let me go saying he was going to continue to find a law that I had broken and send the fine in the mail to me.”
As retold by Jimbo this story highlights a number of rule of law issues.
a) That the law must be known and able to be followed.
The confusion over the actual charge, and the eventual dismissal of the charge since it applied to humans and not goats, demonstrates that the law in question is not known or able to followed. If a law is enforced it should be known by the community in advance.
b) That the law should be used in a predictable and fair manner.
Arbitrary use of power is contrary to the rule of law. Laws should apply equally to all and not be used arbitrarily to target specific individuals – and their goats.
Discussion Questions:
What non-legal measures did Jimbo take in an effort to have the fine dropped?
What legal measures did Jimbo take to have the fine dropped?
Did you know it was illegal to destroy flowers? What laws are you unsure of? Click here for a list of 10 weird laws in Australia.
How should police enforce laws that are not known by the community?
What steps could be taken to publicise laws that are not well known?
What issues arise from using laws in an arbitrary manner?
Related Resources
-
This poster forms part of the Informed Playing Card Project, showing how fairness, equality and access to justice help ensure everyone can have their rights protected.
-
This activity helps students apply the three principles of justice—access, equality and fairness—to real‑world scenarios. Students identify which principle is involved, analyse how it is upheld or limited, and discuss why each principle is essential for a fair legal system. The task builds understanding of how justice operates in practice and how these principles support the rule of law in Australia.
-
This case note explains the High Court’s landmark decision in Dietrich v The Queen, which established that an accused facing a serious criminal charge should not be tried without legal representation unless exceptional circumstances exist. It highlights the case’s significance for the right to a fair trial, access to justice, and judicial discretion in staying proceedings to ensure fairness.
Explore Related Topics
-
Law is Known and Accessible
Explore resources on accessible law, highlighting why clear, public, and open rules are essential for fairness and democratic participation, strengthening transparency, and public trust.
-
Open and Transparent Laws
Explore resources on transparent lawmaking, highlighting how accessible, participatory processes strengthen accountability and support openness, public trust, and community engagement.
-
Fair and Prompt Trials
Explore resources on fair and prompt trials, showing how timely hearings and procedural fairness protect justice through transparent and efficient processes and accountable decision‑making.