Casework, Bloody Casework
![handle is hein.journals/alterlj17 and id is 272 raw text is: 1 261 1
Law reform
Casework,
bloody
casework
Jeff Giddings
Community legal
centres have utilised
casework to achieve a
range of legal and
social changes. This
article demonstrates
how a series of
unconnected and
individual cases are
important to the
collective processes
leading to law reform.
Jeff Giddings is a Melbourne lawyer and
teaches legal studies at La Trobe University.
Acknowledgemnent is made to the following
people who generously gave their time and
insight during the preparation of this article:
John Basten, Pat Griffin, John Steele, Jude
McCulloch, Andrew Haesler, Julian
Gardner, Zoe Rathus, Chris Slattery, Tony
Woodyatt, Neil Rees, Jenny Gee, Graham
Hemsley, Jon Faine, Mary Burgess, Gary
Sullivan and Michael Hogan.
When legal eagles talk of important
cases, they almost invariably make ref-
erence to cases which have proceeded in
the superior courts. In the 20 years since
they began, Australian Community
Legal Centres (CLCs) have run a signif-
icant number of such cases, generally in
areas which have traditionally received
little attention from the private legal
profession. CLCs have also been
involved in many cases which have
been important in a collective sense.
This article does not cover all areas of
significant CLC casework. I have
sought to highlight some interesting
areas of casework but am in no way
suggesting that cases/areas not referred
to are not significant. Space and time
constraints have prevented a more
exhaustive review of this area.
Value of casework
Casework needs to be viewed as one
mechanism which may assist CLCs in
achieving their objectives. If centres
wish to retain their funding from
Commonwealth and State Govern-
ments, there is no doubt that they will
have to continue to provide casework
services. While we would all like it to
be otherwise, there is no doubt that it is
the casewo'k service delivery of centres
which is attractive to our funders.
Accepting limitation, it is then for cen-
tres to structure their casework in a
fashion which will stretch the benefits
of that work beyond the individual
client3 assisted. This 'benefit stretching'
can occur in a range of ways including:
changing existing interpretations of
particular laws,
leading to amendment of statutes,
maintaining or increasing the
accountability of groups or individu-
als in positions of power,
* changing the practices adopted by
particular industries.
Role of test cases
The test case work of CLCs has natural-
ly focused on those areas of law which
have tended to be neglected by the pri-
vate legal profession. Significant groups
of the community had traditionally been
denied any real opportunity to exert
their legal rights. The emergence of
CLCs provided such groups with the
opportunity to have relevant areas of
legislation and administrative practice
tested. Change could more easily be
pursued through the courts rather than
through the political process alone.
Some of the significant areas of CLC
test case activity have been housing,
prisons, consumer credit, domestic vio-
lence, social security, discrimination
and police.
Housing
Housing has been a major CLC fo ms,
both for specialist tenancy senices and
more generalist centres. In those States
where residential tenancy disputes are
dealt with by a specialist tribunal rather
than the local courts, CLCs have run
many cases which have assisted in
defining the legislative limits of such
tribunals.' This role has been very
important because the overwhelming
majority of applications to such tri-
bunals have been made by or on behalf
of landlords. In 1990-91, only 7% of
applications made to the Victorian
Residential Tenancies Tribunal were
made by tenants.'
Victorian CLCs were involved in
providing legal support to the Squatters
Union of Victoria during a public squat
campaign in 1983.1 Occupants of a
South Yarra mansion owned by
Telecom, 'Bona Vista', became the sub-
ject of proceedings which ended up
before the High Court of Australia. On
Saturday morning, 8 October 1983, Mr
Justice Wilson of the High Court
ordered the release from prison of squat-
ters gaoled for being in contempt of a
Victorian Supreme Court Order. The
decision of the High Court 'demonstrat-
ed that a powerless group can challenge
an alleged denial of civil rights.
However, [it] was not to do with hous-
ing nor, the plight of the homeless' 4
A significant case was recently run in
New South Wales by the Public Interest
Advocacy Centre in relation to 'no
cause evictions'. In a decision which
may well have wide implications, it has
been decided by the Supreme Court that
natural justice must be accorded to a
public tenant before 'no cause eviction'
proceedings are taken. The Supreme
Court decision in Nicholson v The New
Vol. 17, No.6, December 0 1992](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/alterlj17&div=70&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Casework, Bloody Casework
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most