Jill Meagher’s killer Adrian Bayley in court battle to win legal aid to challenge murder, rape sentences

UPDATE: LEGAL Aid’s decision to reject an application from evil killer Adrian Bayley for taxpayer assistance to fund an appeal has been emphatically backed by Premier Daniel Andrews.

• SPECIAL REPORT: Bayley’s true evil revealed
• SECRET TRIALS: Jill’s killer found guilty of more rapes
• SHOCKING HISTORY: Adrian Bayley’s crimes revealed
• COURT DOCUMENTS: What Bayley told police after Jill arrest
• THE EVIDENCE: Bayley watched movies, ate kebabs after murder

UPDATE: VICTORIA Legal Aid’s decision to reject an application from evil killer Adrian Bayley for taxpayer assistance to fund an appeal has been emphatically backed by Premier Daniel Andrews.

The depraved sex predator is fighting a decision by Victoria Legal Aid to refuse to fund an appeal aimed at reducing his current non-parole period of 43 years.

His lawyers claim the decision to refuse him funding is incompatible with the Charter of Human Rights because it denied "the right of any person convicted of a criminal offence to have the conviction and any sentence imposed in respect of it reviewed by a higher court".

Mr Andrews said “Legal Aid has made exactly the right call”.

“I support them in defending the judgement that they have made, to deny Adrian Bayley any public resources at all,” Mr Andrews said today.

“If the Government needs to join that action then we will.”

An evidence picture of Bayley and his distinctive tattoos used in the Jill Meagher trial.

The non-parole period, imposed following Bayley’s conviction of three horrific rapes he committed before raping and murdering Jill Meagher, means he is not eligible for release until 2058.

Bayley is appealing the sentence, arguing it is manifestly excess, as well as challenges to two of the rape convictions.

But Victoria Legal Aid has refused to fund the appeals prompting Bayley to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

In documents filed with the court it is alleged VLA refused to fund the appeal because of "an important public interest in ensuring public confidence in VLA's stewardship of the funds which are limited”.

VLA was forced to review its appeals process following a public outcry over its decision to fund Bayley's earlier unsuccessful appeal against the sentence imposed after he admitted killing Ms Meagher.

Jill Meagher’s murder sparked a crackdown on jail terms.

In legal action against VLA independent reviewer John Nixon lawyers for Bayley say he is being treated unfairly.

Bayley’s lawyers, acting pro bono, have asked the court to set aside Mr Nixon's ruling and order him to "remake the decision according to law."

Mr Nixon was brought in to review personal refusals to fund the appeals by VLA managing director Bevan Warner.

It is alleged the decisions were made despite advice to VLA to fund the appeals.

Court documents claim Mr Nixon made his decision depside finding that it was likely the Court of Appeal would allow Bayley's appeals against conviction.

"If that prediction is correct then those convictions ... will be quashed," he wrote.

"Assuming those convictions are quashed, the total effective sentence and the global no-parole period will be reviewed and reduced to a lower term."

Bayley’s awful criminal history was revealed after he was convicted of further rapes.

Bayley was already serving a 35-year minimum life prison term he received over the murder of Ms Meagher in 2013 when he was sentenced in May to 18 years in jail for his rapes of three other women.

In sentencing the 44-year-old County Court judge Sue Pullen said she was conscious the prison term meant he had probably lost any hope of regaining his freedom.

But "the magnitude of your crimes demands a sentence of some substance'', she said.

She said he was a cowardly predator. 'Each (victim) in their own way was easy prey. And you were an experienced hunter," she told him.

Barrister Saul Holt QC, who represented Bayley at his earlier trials, will argue the verdicts were unreasonable and the sentences manifestly excessive.

[e-mail]