Further reading and case studies
Continuity of legal representation
Domingo
Domingo was charged with a breach of an apprehended violence order.
On the first court date, the lawyer obtained an adjournment to allow information to be obtained from Domingo's ADHC case worker. On the second court date, another lawyer asked Domingo whether the first lawyer had recommended he plead guilty or not guilty. Unfortunately Domingo could not remember. The support person raised the possibility of a section 32 application but the lawyer decided Domingo should plead not guilty and adjournment was granted.
On the third court date, yet another lawyer appeared and decided a section 32 was the best way to proceed and again adjourned the matter for reports. On the fourth occasion, Domingo's matter was finalised by way of section 32 by the fourth lawyer.
The delays for Domingo could have been substantially reduced if he had continuity of representation.