Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8208. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: How much if anything did the taxpayer pay in legal aid for Graeme Burton to defend the recent charge of attempted murder for which he was found guilty? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am advised by the Legal Services Agency that the amount paid to date in relation to Mr Burton’s legal aid file is $12342.50. That amount includes lawyers’ fees and other relevant disbursements that have been approved to date. Although the trial has concluded Mr Burton has yet to be sentenced. The final cost of services is not yet known. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister agree that regardless of the outcome of the trial and indeed the sentencing Mr Burton will be in prison for at least the next 25 years in any case? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I urge caution in this area because as I understand the situation Graeme Burton has not yet been sentenced and I do not think it is appropriate for this House to be raising issues in respect of that matter. I do not want to take a supplementary question off the member; if he likes he can ask a different supplementary question. I ask him to be very careful about the fact that this particular convicted person has not yet been sentenced. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is true and that was why the question was so carefully framed. It was making a point about the sentence that Mr Burton is already serving. He is already in prison for 25 years. That was the point that my colleague Mr David Garrett was making. Mr Burton is serving 25 years in prison regardless. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is quite important. I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I unusually have to agree with Rodney Hide. It was a carefully worded question which did have “regardless of” the sentence that is about to be imposed as part of it. I think the question was actually about the old sentence and the likelihood of parole. The Minister of Justice could probably say that he has no responsibility and does not want to comment but I think the question should not be ruled out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I acknowledge the advice offered by colleagues but what troubles me is that we normally have to be very careful in referring to the past records of people who are before the courts. This case at least is beyond the basic conviction. We are at the point of sentencing though. The dilemma I have is that obviously details of the convicted person’s past are relevant to sentencing in respect of the conviction currently before the court. That is the dilemma I face on the matter. I ask the member to ask a supplementary question being very careful of the fact that if there is undue reference to the past record convictions and sentencing of a person currently before the court there is risk of argument that it may influence the court. I ask him to be very conscious of that. 
David Garrett 
: I will simply ask a different question to save any potential conflict. Does the Minister agree that every single dollar paid out in criminal legal aid is $1 less available for civil legal aid for such persons as those who are suffering from a leaky home that they cannot afford to fix? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes and I can understand that member’s point of view. But I would say two things in response to it. First it is the hallmark of a just society that everyone is entitled to a fair trial regardless of conduct. The legal aid system provides for a fair trial regardless of what sort of person the court is dealing with. The second point is that—and I am sure that the member as an experienced barrister would understand this—legal aid quite often prevents defendants from acting for themselves. I am sure the member is aware of appalling cases where defendants have sought to cross-examine their victims notwithstanding the restrictions contained in section 95 of the Evidence Act. So there is a very good reason why we have a legal aid system for criminals.