Talk:Dietrich v The Queen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dietrich v The Queen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result December 12, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

Portal	Dietrich v The Queen is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the featured article queue of the Australia Portal.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Consequences of the case

Have there been any subsequent cases that have used this case as precedent? Andjam 10:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of hundred cases have referenced this one, a smaller number of those (the ones with approprite factual situations) all across the country have directly applied it. These include R v White (VSCA), R v Joyce (NSWCCA), R v Grosser (SCSA) and King v Lankford (WASCA). Most of them have been about the less famous aspect of the decision, the mandate on trial judges to grant stays or adjournments when an accused is unrepresented and this makes the trial unfair, and are as such "failure to adjourn" appeals. --bainer (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Which Victorian government is being referred to in the consequences section? Kennett, I'm assuming? Ambi 00:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

1997, so yeah, Kennett. I expanded that section a little with more details from the Senate report. --bainer (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)