Moonlight, you cant sue lawyers (barristers or solicitors) for anything "intimately related to [their] work," or words to that effect, as a result of this case
'trial matters' is a little misleading
as for the ruling.... Kirby J, as could be expected, dissented. This, of course, should be noted... as should his reasoning. However... i agree with the majority (in particular the opinions expressed by McHugh J) and would like to re-enforce the point that the law needs a degree of finality about it. To allow lawyers to be plagued by negligence suits brings the results of criminal trials into question. No, the law needs to be final. Decisions made by the courts need to be final, they must be subject to the law and to the law only. Individual acts that happen during the trial must be dealt with during the course of the trial. Yes, the law is an ass... but so are people. I'm not a fan of civil litigation at the best of times... and it is my opinion that allowing the integrity of lawyers to be questioned by individuals who have little knowledge of the workings of the court is wrong. Furthermore, lawyers work in a extremely subjective and volatile field. Thinking on their feet is so extremely crucial. Bad advice, 'negligent' advice might be given from time to time.... but it comes with human nature. A Doctor also has to think on his feet... but he is limited by certain strands of objectivity. He cannot very well cut off a patient's head to stop his eye bleeding. In law you can, metaphorically, do it.
that's my opinion anyway.
