In our society justice is blind. It has to be that way to ensure that every individual is able to exercise their legal rights. And one of those rights is to appeal against a finding made against you if it is adverse. That’s why we have courts of appeal.

It does not matter in our society who you are – you are able to exercise that right of appeal. And if you are eligible you can receive legal aid to help you argue your appeal. Once again, our legal aid system is of necessity blind. If you meet the financial and legal criteria that the legal aid system sets then you have an entitlement to receive aid.

You would be forgiven for thinking that this little homily is stating the bleeding obvious. Well yes it is, but it needs to be because Australia’s largest selling daily newspaper, the Melbourne Herald Sun doesn’t get it.

This morning, under the byline of Geoff Wilkinson, Anthony Dowsley and Carly Crawford, The Herald Sun ran a front page splash which sputtered with outrage at the fact that convicted murderer Peter Dupas, one of Victoria’s most notorious killers, had the temerity to appeal his conviction last month of the murder of Mersina Halvagis in November 1997. Mr Dupas’ legal aid lawyers are filing an appeal against the verdict on the basis that it is unsafe and unsatisfactory. These are commonly argued grounds of appeal, particularly in murder cases.

How dare Legal Aid act for this man, thunders The Herald Sun, in an opening paragraph better suited to an opinion page piece, than a front page news story. “Serial killer Peter Dupas is appealing his conviction for the murder of Mersina Halvagis, putting another sickening burden on Victorian taxpayers”, say the writers.

The logic behind this trio of Herald Sun reporters’ story seems to be this – it is in fact not open to everyone, irrespective of age, colour, sex, background to exercise their right to appeal against a conviction for murder. And it’s certainly not ok to use taxpayers funds to run the appeal. The Herald Sun will pick and choose for us who they think is entitled to exercise their right to appeal.

Oh, and one more thing. Could someone at The Herald Sun please give their journalists a lesson in criminal law 101? According to Wilkinson, Dowsley and Crawford:

Dupas’s lawyers led no evidence on his behalf during his four-week trial for Ms Halvagis’s murder. He also instructed his lawyers not to make submissions on his behalf at his pre-sentence plea hearing before Justice Philip Cummins.

In our criminal justice system it is for the prosecution to call evidence and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Given that this is the case, it is common for the defence not to call evidence but to test the evidence of the prosecution.

And when you are already serving two life sentences, there’s not much point making submissions in mitigation when you have been found guilty of another murder.