The legal aid M/C question was really weird. For legal aid to be granted, people must pass the 4 tests, (1) means (2) jurisdiction (3) merits (4) availability of funds. In the Dietrich v The Queen 1992 case, the High Court ruled that in SERIOUS offences a trial could be indefinitely stayed (delayed) until legal representation is available. BUT this doesn't actually mean that committing a more serious offence increases your chance of legal aid - individuals for serious offences must still pass the 4 tests. Interestingly, it was precisely in this Dietrich case that Dietrich was DENIED legal aid because he refused to plead guilty. But I'm not sure if this applies to all cases.
Still torn between 'pleading guilty' and 'serious offence'. Dunno which one's the best answer here. If a more serious offence occurs, the damage to the accused will be greater, increasing their 'merits' component of legal aid, thus increasing their chances. In the same way, Ditriech demonstrates that legal aid can be denied purely on the basis that one refuses to plead guilty.
