Talk:Dietrich v The Queen/Archive 1

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)

Detailed overview
A more detailed conspectus of the case may serve academic interests.

An examination of the early US authorities reveals that the 6th Amendment right to Counsel did not include a guarantee that counsel would be furnished at State expense (see Houk -v- Montgomery County Commissioners [1895] 14 md App; 41 NE 1068) even when the charge was murder (see People -v- Moice [1860] 15 Cal 329) and that the Courts had no power to appoint counsel to defend at State expense a person charged with a crime (see McDonald -v- State of Wisconsin [1891] 80 Wis 407; 50 NW 185) and Baker -v- Same [1891] 84 Wis 584; 54 NW 1003) so that counsel appointed by the Court did not get paid.

In Powell -v- Alabama [1932] 287 US 45 the US Supreme Court found that indigent illiterate blacks charged with the rape and murder of a white girl in Alabama who were denied the appointment of Counsel paid for at State expense were denied due process of the law. The due process guarantee was read together with the counsel clause combining the provisions contained in the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to found this interpretation. After this decision there was no general right to counsel. Only those suffering the disability of language literacy and poverty charged with capital or serious offences could claim the right to be provided with counsel at State expense.

In Johnson -v- Zerbst [1938] 304 US 458 the US Supreme Court held that the 6th Amendment Counsel Clause not only created a right to make use of a retained lawyer in Federal Criminal proceedings, but mandated the assignment of Counsel for an accused otherwise unable to afford legal assistance upsetting a long prevailing understanding to the contrary. However, in Betts -v- Brady [1942] 316 US 455 the US Supreme Court refused to hold that the 14th Amendment extended to the States the full 6th Amendment rule imposed on Federal Criminal Courts in Johnson -v- Zerbst (supra) finding that due process did not require the appointment of Counsel for indigent defendants in every State felony trial in the absence of special Powell -v- Alabama (supra) circumstances of mental incapacity, inexperience or language that placed the defendant at a serious disadvantage in maintaining his defence.

Even accepting that in Australia there was no general right to counsel, the Dietrich case appeared to fall under the Powell v Alabama ‘exception’ because not only was Olaf Dietrich was indigent, he was not capable of conducting his own trial because he suffered from a clinically diagnosed ‘personality disorder’ that manifested itself in irrational burst of fury, that led him to scream and yell and throw things. Reports from psychologists supported the view that Dietrich’s personality disorder which manifested itself in Touretts syndrome style outbursts fell far short of the definition of insanity or mental illness, so as to prevent him from being able to demand a verdict from a special jury as to his fitness to stand trial.

In Gideon -v- Wainwright [1942] 316 US 768 the US Supreme Court took the process of development one step further finding that Counsel should be provided at State expense for all those indigent accused facing serious charges. The development continued though Wolf -v- Colorado [1948] 338 US 25 Arsinger -v- Hamlim [1972] 407 US 25 and Scott -v- Illinois [1979] 440 US 367 so that the present position in the USA might accurately be described as demanding that Counsel be provided at State expense for all criminal trial where imprisonment results.

In Dietrich the High Court of Australia was referred to the due process guarantees contained in those Imperial Acts transcribed in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic) which are expressed in similar words (and may have formed the foundation for the provisions in the Amendments to the US Constitution) and asked to read these together with section 397, of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) just as the US Supreme Court had done in a long line of authority.

It is worthy of note that the US Constitution was not further amended. What changed was the interpretation by the US Supreme Court of these provisions in line with what they considered was society’s expectations.

In contrast, the Victorian CCA specifically refused to accept the invitation then posited to elevate the rights of Her Majesty’s subjects up to that level enjoyed by blacks in Alabama since 1933. The HCA agreed with that decision, keeping Australia at the level set in the US at the turn of the last century after Betts -v- Brady (supra).

In refusing to read together the Victorian due process requirements of those Imperial Acts transcribed in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic) together with Section 397, of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) in the same way as the US Supreme Court has read together the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution to give a right to Counsel, the High Court of Australia observed in Dietrich (supra) that due process of the law has received scant attention in Australia (See Dietrich (supra) at 304 and the reference to R -v- Ibrahim [1987] 17 A Crim R 460) and that it does not mean in Australia what it means in the USA (Dietrich at 304 following Adler -v- District Court [1990] 19 NSWLR 317). As an adjunct to the right to a fair trial, Australians now have a right to an adjournment if not to Counsel.

Before it was amended to counter the effect of Dietrich, Section 397, of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) was expressed in similar terms to the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides: “In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right .... to have the assistance of Counsel for his defense.” Section 397 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) as it then was, provided: “Every accused person shall be admitted after the close of the case for the Prosecution to make full answer and defence thereto by Counsel.”

In Dietrich (supra) Mason CJ and McHugh J (at 307) referring to [1368] 42 Edward III c. III (which provides “… no man shall be put to answer … without due process …”) said: “As it appears in that provision, the expression “Due Process” can hardly be the “compendious expression for all those rights … basic to our society” that it is in the United States Constitution” (citing and quoting from Wolf -v- Colorado [1949] 338 US 25 at 27; Dawson J (at 345-347) Brennan J (at 316) and Toohey J (at 359) agreed. Gaudron and Deane JJ completely ignored the submission, no reference to the same being found in their Judgments).

The HCA has not appeared reluctant to exercise its “legislative capacity” in cases not dealing with civil rights (see Phillip Morris -v- Commissioner of Business Franchises [1989] 167 CLR 399; Street -v- Queensland Bar Association [1989] 168 CLR 461 and ACTU -v- Commonwealth (No. 2) 108 ALR 577). The HCA dominated by Roman Catholics for more than 30 years has also given Australia Mabo and Others -v- Queensland [1992] 107 ALR 1 in harmony with the desire promoted by the RCC for reconciliation with Aborigines.

Despite that posited by The Age newspaper and carried by other media outlets, the photograph of the offender in the suit wearing a balaclava is not Hugo Rich. Great ‘crime fiction’, but not fact.

The photograph was in the article ‘Hugo Rich chose the low road’ by John Silvester on 10 June 2005 with the caption ’Hugo Rich caught on camera during a bank robbery’ and rerun as a collage of photographs with in the article ‘Notorious criminal Hugo Rich found guilty of security guard's murder’ by Steve Butcher on 12 June 2009 with the caption ‘Career criminal Hugo Rich (main image and top inset) carries out an armed robbery unrelated to the North Blackburn raid in which Erwin Kastenberger (bottom inset) was murdered’.

The Crown case in 1995 was that the person behind the counter (barely visible in the 2005 photograph, obliterated in the 2009 collage) was Hugo Rich and that he could be identified by his clothing (said to be an expensive Trussardi Brand Jean jacket). The Crown relied upon this ‘clothing identification’ in presenting its case against Hugo Rich for armed robberies at both the ANZ Burwood and Nunawading branches. The Crown case was that they did not know who the person in the suit was.

Hugo Rich was acquitted by a jury on both armed robberies.

The decision of the High Court in Rogers v R [1994] HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251; (1994) 123 ALR 417; (1994) 68 ALJR 688; (1994) 74 A Crim R 462 and the passage from the joint judgment of Deane and Gaudron JJ may be of particular relevance:

“10. From earliest times, the principle embodied in the maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur has been seen as necessary to protect against "the scandal of conflicting decisions" ((83) Spencer Bower and Turner, The Doctrine of Res Judicata, 2nd ed. (1969) at 411.). Issue estoppel and res judicata or cause of action estoppel are mechanisms which protect against conflict of that kind. However, the principle has an existence beyond those mechanisms so that, for example, it is an abuse of process to mount a collateral attack in civil proceedings on an earlier decision in a criminal trial. At least that is so unless there is a less onerous burden of proof or there is fresh evidence or proof of fraud ((84) See, for example, Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (1982) AC 529 at 541, 544-545 per Lord Diplock; Bryant v. Collector of Customs (1984) 1 NZLR 280 at 284-285)”.

While John Silvester, Andrew Rule and Steve Butcher are acknowledged as being the writers of great ‘crime fiction’ until now people do not appear to have accepted that newspapers such as The Age are now also printing ‘crime fiction’ positing it as if it were fact. Moreover it does not appear to be an abuse of newspaper responsibility to mount a collateral attack in a newspaper article on an earlier decision in a criminal trial. Hugo Rich has been denied the ‘full benefit of his acquittal’ to which he is entitled as a matter of law.

An appeal as of right against his convictions (on points of law alone) and applications for leave to appeal his convictions on mixed matters raising questions of law and fact were lodged by Hugo Rich on Monday, 16 November 2009, the first business day after his sentence listing 73 grounds on why the convictions should not stand.

He does not yet have legal representation for the case. The principles enunciated in Dietrich v The Queen do not appear to apply to appeals (see Rich v The Queen M5/1998 [1999] HCATrans 643).

Mark A Clarkson LL B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.250.91.42 (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have inserted a heading before your message and have removed your email address because you may not be aware of how damaging it can be to have your address harvested and spammed (while not likely, it is possible for your email account to be rendered unusable). On Wikipedia, you are able to register an email address with your account (which I assume is User talk:Mark A Clarkson). Other users can visit your user page and click "E-mail this user" to send you an email. The other person does not learn your email address unless you reply to them.
 * It sounds as if you may have some useful contributions towards this article, but please explain the problem much more briefly. I may be able to assist by providing information on appropriate procedures, but you would need to explain the situation much more succinctly (perhaps give an example of text in the article that needs changing, and what a replacement might be; please keep it brief – it does not all need to be fixed quickly). Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: 28 July 2010

Having now endured 12 months of 23 hour a day lock down in the deprivations and depths of Corrections Victoria, deep concerns arise about the mental and emotional wellbeing of Hugo Rich(formerly known as Olaf Dietrich). Hugo is very much feeling the lack of human company (Prison Officers not meeting the definition). He describes now feeling very much the need to talk to someone.

What Hugo describes as his ‘black fog’ appears to be overwhelming him. I have known Ollie for more than 30 years and I have never heard him before talk of suicide. This is not the usual ‘penal aboulia’, but an aggravation and exacerbation of his long standing clinically diagnosed disorders.

The other main aggravating factor appears to be the ongoing battle with Corrections Victoria for access to the documents, materials and facilities needed to prepare for his appeal and the related proceedings.

By taking away all of his Court transcripts, papers and documents and denying him access to his computer, it appears that Corrections Victoria are taking the not uncommon stance of imposing the convictions and dismissing the appeal vi et armis, no doubt to save the tax payer and the justice system the cost and inconvenience of hearing and determining the same according to the due process of the law.

The first of the maladies affecting Ollie might be challenged on the basis that it amounts to ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. The second on the basis of the human rights of inmates, access to the Courts and the need for due process (not to speak of the ICCPR Protocols).

But, this is Australia and as Murray Gleeson AO would have it ‘no rights are absolute’. It also appears that in the hierarchical structure of unequals, the rights Ollie may possess are less in quality and quantity than others that the system may choose to favour.

The Summun bonum is deeply rooted as the black putrid thread that flows through Australian justice, demanding that nothing is sacred, no one is barred and no act is too low; all mere ‘lesser evils’ required in the name of the ‘greater good’ of imprisoning criminals.

Attempts to impeach criminal convictions on the basis that corrupt and unlawful devices were used to obtain or maintain them are routinely dismissed by Australian Courts and litigants chastised for raising ‘mere technicalities’.

On 15 June 2006, the US Supreme Court in Hudson –v- Michigan 200 US 321 imposed limits on the due process of the law, finding that the failure to comply with the “Knock and Announce” extension to the Lawful Search and Seizure Rules should not invoke the application of the Exclusionary Rule and lead to the quashing of the convictions otherwise obtained.

This decision marked the end of the moral high ground for the US Supreme Court. The jurisprudentes in countries other than the USA who formerly looked to the US Supreme Court for moral leadership and for decisions to which they could aspire, now look away. The judgments of Justice Breyer, for due process and the Roman Catholic Justice Scalia for the Summum bonum, clearly outline the basis for, and the consequences of, the opposing foundations for justice and show that Roman Catholic Law and Doctrine is not just an Australian problem, but that this Strangler-Fig of Justice is an International virus.

However, some people in Australia have more civil rights than others. Not everyone is equal and certainly not equal before the law. Nor should the quality of the civil rights accorded to the special few, be confused with the quantity of the civil rights posited as being available to all.

Those ‘mere technicalities’ and the full measure of the due process of the law were extended to Noel Ashby, a former deputy commissioner of Victoria Police to enable the most exquisitely crafted points of law to succeed and relieve him of the burden of charges of perjury in R v Ashby [2010] VSC 14.

The benefit of this ‘special case’ (not to be regarded as a precedent of general application) were extended to Stephen Linnell, the former Victoria Police media boss, to enable him to escape liability for the criminal offences to which he had previously pleaded guilty (no doubt due to a mistake as to the law) and on which he had been convicted. The moral of the story: you can not convict a member of Victoria Police on corruption charges, even when he pleads guilty (see http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/convictions-against-stephen-linnell-for-lying-to-victorias-opi-have-been-quashed/story-e6frg6n6-1225880324217)

The Australian Coat of Arms hangs proudly over the bench in every Australian Court. The Red Kangaroo (Macropus rufus) the supporter dexter of the crest in the Australian Coat of Arms is indigenous only to Australia and lends its name to the term ‘Kangaroo Court’ The supporter sinister of the crest, an Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), known for hiding its head in the sand when approached, includes its luxuriant plumage of shaggy appearance in what is displayed in this position, emulating the bewigged incumbents of the seats below. In Australian Courts, those looking down see only happy smiling faces. Those looking up, see a Kangaroo and an Emu's Bottom. 116.250.91.42 (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)116.250.91.42 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The decision of the Court of Appeal (coram judice: Nettle, Neave and Osborn JJA) in Rich v The Queen [2014] VSCA 126 was published on 20 June 2014. Despite the High Court in Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 refusing to recognise that “due process of the law” has any force or effect in Australia, this Court of Appeal mentioned the concept and found that Rich had not been denied it (whatever due process of the law may mean in Victoria, Australia).

Also mentioned, but not comprehensively examined, were the activities perpetrated à huis clos of Damien B. Maguire, the Chief Examiner, the Grand Inquisitor of the auto-da-fé reincarnated in Victoria and empowered pursuant to the Major Crimes (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 (Vic) (for which see http://www.chiefexaminer.vic.gov.au/content.asp?a=OCESite). The suicide of Helmut Staudacher (also known as Peter Brent James) followed his appearance before the Chief Examiner.

Of course the tender mercies of the Chief Examiner is only directed at serious criminals, not those coming under the Koala Act, such as the daughter of former Supreme Court Justice, Kristina Hampel. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796223/former-judge-s-daughter-cocaine-trafficking-charges.html. VicPol and their media friends know how to control the Judiciary in Victoria. Kept this arrest quiet for a couple of months. The how and why of Kristina Hampel being granted bail on serious drug trafficking charges is more evidence of the light of favour being shone on this matter.

Getting bail in Victoria on any serious criminal charge is difficult and not usually granted, if at all, until after the committal, so the evidence underpinning the police case can be considered by the bail court. There is a presumption against granting bail in drug cases. Common or garden variety drug traffickers find getting bail is almost impossible. Kristina Hampel must have shared the Cocaine with the right people (not to speak of the unseen silent influence à huis clos of the Hampel family). Of course they let Kristina Hampel off without a conviction http://www.heraldsun.com.au/…/…/story-fni0fee2-1227140990543 Why are we surprised? Special People Special Rules.

“Gorgeous George” Hampel (as he is known) has now got his drug dealing and consuming daughter Kristina Hampel off serious drug possession and drug trafficking charges and his son out of an awkward situation with a dead girlfriend down the Rubbish Chute (literally). Antony Hampel was “assisted” in the police interviews after Ms Handsjuk's death by his father, retired Supreme Court justice George Hampel. http://news.optuszoo.com.au/2014/12/10/garbage-chute-death-a-tragic-accident/. Gorgeous George must have used up a lot of the Brownie Points he accumulated participating for all those years in the on-going conspiracy to pervert the course of justice that is the criminal administration of justice in the Police State Victoria Australia.

Damien B. Maguire, the Chief Examiner has the powers to require Kristina Hampel to tell him from whom she bought the drugs she trafficked and to whom she sold them. On her social media sites, she includes prominent business figures, legal identities and a member of the Victoria government as “friends”. Perhaps “customers” might be a more apt expression. Forget not the case of Peter Hayes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hayes_%28lawyer%29

However, Kristina Hampel’s Father George Hampel was a Supreme Court Justice and her Step Mother is Human Rights Lawyer and County Court Judge Felicity Hampel. Damien B. Maguire, the Chief Examiner will probably never ask the questions. He may already know the answers. Those involved may also be friends of his. They would not be friends for long if he started poking around in their private business. The legal profession in the Police State, Victoria, Australia is a savage war-like tribe. You cross them at your peril. Ollie Dietrich, now known as Hugo Rich knows all this too well.

The Court of Appeal in Rich v The Queen [2014] VSCA 126, also touched on the constitutional law points. The headnote adumbrates. “Unlawfully obtained evidence – Documentary evidence seized under warrant issued on faith of affidavit not sworn or declared in accordance with ss 100 and 103 of Evidence Act 1958 – Whether evidence admissible – Whether s 5 of Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (Affidavits) Act 2012 inconsistent with Charter right to fair trial – Whether repugnant to Kable principle – Whether requiring court to turn blind eye to police impropriety – Momcilovic v R (2011) 245 CLR 1; Nicholas v R (1998) 193 CLR 173, applied; Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51; Fardon v AG (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, distinguished; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; Ridgeway v R (1995) 184 CLR 19, considered – Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (Affidavits) Act 2012, s 5; Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, s 24”.

The Court of Appeal did not cite or examine the full history of this sad chapter in the criminal administration of justice in Victoria (that is administration of justice by criminals). Students of the extent to which Judges will go to craft exquisite points of law to make excuses for the corrupt antics of Victoria’s finest should read the decision of self-styled “Human Rights Advocate” Justice Lex Lasry (also of the aging boy band ”Lex Pistols”) in R v Borg (Ruling No1) [2012] VSC 26. “… requiring court to turn blind eye to police impropriety”? You bet!

What now for Ollie Dietrich, now known as Hugo Rich? Before he can take this festering putrid cesspool to the UN Human Rights Committee, he has to obtain the perfunctory refusal by the High Court of Australia of Special Leave or otherwise face a challenge that he failed to exhaust his legal remedies in Australia. The High Court of Australia only hear less than a dozen criminal cases a year and the refusal of Special Leave is now so routine, the UN Human Rights Committee might usefully allow Petitioners to come direct from the Courts of Appeals of the States, without imposing upon them the additional burden and expense of the High Court exercise in futility.

In Re Heerey; ex parte Heeinrich [2001] HCA 74, Kirby J found that that where a matter could proceed by way of an application for special leave, it should, and applications for prerogative relief should not be contemplated by the High Court in those circumstances and refused as a matter of discretion.

In Glennan –v- Commissioner of Taxation (2003) 198 CLR 250 the Full Court found that the remedies for which s 75(v) provides do not lie as of right, adding that:

“The view expressed by Barwick CJ in R v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte WA National Football League (Inc), with the agreement of Stephen J and Aickin J and the disagreement of Mason J and Jacobs J, that the existence of the right of appeal to this court, subject to the grant of special leave, is irrelevant to the exercise of the jurisdiction under S 75(v) to grant prohibition, does not represent the present doctrine of the court. The doctrine was correctly described by Kirby J in Re Heerey; Ex parte Heinrich”.

This critical analysis should highlight the fact that Justice Kirby in the name of “doctrine” effectively repealed the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and the Judiciary Act 1903 [Cth] which otherwise provide the High Court of Australia with original and appellate jurisdiction exercised by way of Constitutional Writ. The High Court now regularly invokes the power under Rule 6.07, of the High Court Rules 2004 [Cth] to declare any application sought to be filed that is pitched to the original or appellate jurisdiction brought otherwise than by leave or special leave to be “an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious”.

A Full Bench of the High Court in The Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2001] HCA 49 considered the radical difference between leave to initiate originating judicial process to review a decision of an administrative decision maker for error of law, and leave to initiate an appeal against the decision of a court, finding:

“In Kemper Reinsurance Co v Minister of Finance [2000] 1 AC 1, the Privy Council considered whether the provision of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 of Bermuda permitted an appeal against an order refusing leave to apply for an order of certiorari. Lord Hoffmann, giving the advice of the Privy Council, considered that it was (at 15) "by no means obvious that a refusal of leave to challenge [the] legality [of a decision subject to judicial review] should be final". His Lordship said (at 14-15):

"In principle … judicial review is quite different from an appeal. It is concerned with the legality rather than the merits of the decision, with the jurisdiction of the decision maker and the fairness of the decision making process rather than whether the decision was correct.  In the case of a restriction on the right of appeal, the policy is to limit the number of times which a litigant may require the same question to be decided.  The court is specifically given power to decide that a decision on a particular question should be final.  There is obviously a strong case for saying that in the absence of express contrary language, such a decision should itself be final.  But judicial review seldom involves deciding a question which someone else has already decided.  In many cases, the decision maker will not have addressed his mind to the question at all.  The application for leave may be the first time that the issue of the legality of the decision is raised". (emphasis added)

Again, however, Kemper can provide no absolute rule. The relevant statutory provision must govern. Further, it may be important to notice that the parallel with Kemper is not exact. The kind of judicial review for which leave was sought in this case is narrower than the general supervisory jurisdiction which was invoked in Kemper. Importantly, however, Kemper does invite attention to the radical difference between leave to initiate originating judicial process to review a decision of an administrative decision maker for error of law, and leave to initiate an appeal against the decision of a court. A conclusion that the latter kind of decision is final may be reached more readily than a conclusion that a litigant is to be barred from invoking the judicial process to review administrative action without the legitimacy of that bar being capable of being considered on appeal in the same way as any other determination by the court would be (Electric Light and Power Supply Corporation Ltd v Electricity Commission of NSW (1956) 94 CLR 554)”.

The aggregate effect of the decision of Justice Kirby in Re Heerey; ex parte Heinrich (2001) 185 ALR 106 and its adoption by the other members of the High Court is that in criminal matters only the veracity of the convictions is examined and then only on an application for special leave, whilst the legality of the means used to obtain that conviction, “the jurisdiction of the decision maker and the fairness of the decision making process” are ignored altogether.

Kangaroos are indigenous only to Australia. 58.106.45.69 (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)58.106.45.69 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Dead Footnote
As s 397 of the Crimes Act 1958 has now been repealed, someone might want to find a new source for the footnote that preserves the version as it was during Dietrich's case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.246 (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've added a link to an archived version. - Bilby (talk)

Problems with references
Hi folks, there seems to be a problem with citations 26-30. Clicking on the links given in the footnotes for those citations and it just opens up this same article. I'm not sure what the problem is or what the Anderson and Butler, Wilkinson, and Hunt sources actually are and unfortunately I don't have time to try to figure it out, so am just noting it here. Hopefully someone familiar with the sources can take a look. Cheers, Sarah 01:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it - it relates to a change in the cite templates a while back, whereby they no longer automatically produce harvard-compatible anchors by default. - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All fixed, and I've updated the links where necessary. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead length

 * I'm interested in possibly scheduling this for TFA in the near future, but there are some issues that need to be fixed first:
 * Lead is overly short; should discuss background and impact
 * Too many one-sentence paragraphs
 * Non-free image of Dietrich is probably not needed.
 * There are possibly more; these are from a quick overview of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)