❓ Question regarding legal fees for the Mallard and Beamish cases, specifically concerning pro bono work and government funding. The Attorney General provides clarification and tables a document.
AnsweredQoN 756Legislative Council
Asked
19 September 2006
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney General
QuestionView source ↗
MALLARD AND BEAMISH CASES - LEGAL FEES
I refer the Attorney General to question without notice 735. (1) As the Solicitor-General’s Office provided advice on a request for payment rather than a legal opinion on a matter that is the subject of legal action, why will the Attorney General not table the advice? (2) Is the Attorney General aware of public statements made on many occasions indicating that lawyers and others working on the Mallard and Beamish appeals were working on a pro bono basis? (3) If so, what did the government agree to pay when lawyers and others had made a public virtue of their claims to be acting for free? (4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY
I refer the Attorney General to question without notice 735. (1) As the Solicitor-General’s Office provided advice on a request for payment rather than a legal opinion on a matter that is the subject of legal action, why will the Attorney General not table the advice? (2) Is the Attorney General aware of public statements made on many occasions indicating that lawyers and others working on the Mallard and Beamish appeals were working on a pro bono basis? (3) If so, what did the government agree to pay when lawyers and others had made a public virtue of their claims to be acting for free? (4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(1) As the Solicitor-General’s Office provided advice on a request for payment rather than a legal opinion on a matter that is the subject of legal action, why will the Attorney General not table the advice? (2) Is the Attorney General aware of public statements made on many occasions indicating that lawyers and others working on the Mallard and Beamish appeals were working on a pro bono basis? (3) If so, what did the government agree to pay when lawyers and others had made a public virtue of their claims to be acting for free? (4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(2) Is the Attorney General aware of public statements made on many occasions indicating that lawyers and others working on the Mallard and Beamish appeals were working on a pro bono basis? (3) If so, what did the government agree to pay when lawyers and others had made a public virtue of their claims to be acting for free? (4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(3) If so, what did the government agree to pay when lawyers and others had made a public virtue of their claims to be acting for free? (4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
[See paper 1876.]
(1) As the Solicitor-General’s Office provided advice on a request for payment rather than a legal opinion on a matter that is the subject of legal action, why will the Attorney General not table the advice? (2) Is the Attorney General aware of public statements made on many occasions indicating that lawyers and others working on the Mallard and Beamish appeals were working on a pro bono basis? (3) If so, what did the government agree to pay when lawyers and others had made a public virtue of their claims to be acting for free? (4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(2) Is the Attorney General aware of public statements made on many occasions indicating that lawyers and others working on the Mallard and Beamish appeals were working on a pro bono basis? (3) If so, what did the government agree to pay when lawyers and others had made a public virtue of their claims to be acting for free? (4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(3) If so, what did the government agree to pay when lawyers and others had made a public virtue of their claims to be acting for free? (4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(4) Why will the Attorney General not table a request for payment from Clayton Utz as it is a request for public funding that has no legally sensitive or confidential standing? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(1) The Solicitor-General’s Office did not provide advice on a request for payment. Such advice was provided by the Solicitor-General. (2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(2)-(3) The Attorney General is aware that the solicitors and counsel acting for Mr Mallard provided their services pro bono for Mr Mallard’s appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and for the special leave application to the High Court. Government funding related only to the appeal before the High Court. In the case of Mr Beamish, the Attorney General understands that all the preliminary legal work involved in presenting the government with a petition for mercy on behalf of Mr Beamish was carried out on a pro bono basis. The government funding related solely to the preparation for, and the hearing of, Mr Beamish’s appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Payment was made in each case because the government considered it was in the public interest that the conduct of the appellant’s appeals should be properly funded as on the advice it had received it appeared that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice. (4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
(4) I table a document. [See paper 1876.]
[See paper 1876.]
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.