 Consequently, Mr. Romano argued that the "Human Rights Act of 2004" granted Mr. Hakimi the power to contract his services and the that Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T) was solely responsible for the remuneration of those services under the Human Right Act 2004 section 22.Accordingly, the Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T) claimed, that Mr. Romano's interpretation of section 22 was not the intention of the provision and that there were reasonable limitations on this provision.In conclusion, Justice Refshauge of the Supreme Court found that ‘’common sense and international jurisprudence’’ dictated the "Human Rights Act" does not pronounce an unconditional right to be represented by a lawyer of the accused’s choosing, citing R v Williams 2006.