That’s the opinion of solicitor John Suta, who says the barrister representing the bushranger was inept.

Mr Suta, a partner in Nevin, Lenne and Gross, has been a solicitor in the region for 20 years with an interest in the history of Ned Kelly going back 40 years.

Mr Suta wants the deficiencies in Kelly’s defence to a murder charge pointed out after debate about where he should be buried.

“Ned’s remains ought to be buried where they belong at the Greta cemetery,” he said.

“It is my unequivocal opinion that the defence at Ned’s trial for murder in respect to what happened at Stringy Bark Creek should have been one of self-defence.”

Mr Suta said in Kelly’s own words he described: “How the police used to be blowing that they would not ask me to stand. They would shoot me first and then cry surrender”.

The presiding judge at Ned’s trial was Sir Redmond Barry, described by Mr Suta as the Irish-born son of a major-general and Protestant who brought to the colony of Victoria all the neuroses of the privileged Anglo-Irish and several of his own.

The trial began on Thursday, October 28, 1880, with Henry Bindon, the most inexperienced barrister in Victoria, representing Kelly.

Mr Suta said the Crown on the other hand had briefed two of the most experienced criminal barristers and prosecutors in the state.

Witnesses confirmed that Ned Kelly had made statements police were going to shoot him if he had not shot first.

“The prosecution at trial wished to tender into evidence the Jerilderie letter which gives Ned Kelly’s own account of what happened at Stringy Bark Creek, defending himself and offering what amounted to a lawful defence of his actions,” Mr Suta said.

“Bindon objected to its tender in evidence and the prosecution greeted the objection with great relief.”

Mr Suta said it meant the prosecution could not be accused of retaining evidence relevant to Kelly’s defence.

“Throughout the trial, Bindon failed to come to grips with Ned’s plea of self-defence,” he said.

Mr Suta said a competent lawyer would have presented a defence relating to the shooting of Constable Lonigan as: “Lonigan’s action in drawing his gun put Ned in immediate danger of death or at least grievous bodily harm”.

“His actions in shooting Lonigan in the circumstances including his belief that the police had come to shoot him down rather than arrest him and that Lonigan was about to do just that, was the infliction on Lonigan in good faith and on reasonable grounds of no greater injury than was necessary.”

Mr Suta said it should have been stressed Kelly and his companions confronted the police and called upon them to surrender.

“This bore out Ned’s assertions that he did not wish to kill the police, but sought to disarm them,” Mr Suta said.

There were other facts which afforded Kelly a defence of self-defence.

The police were carrying body straps on their horses, they were not in uniform, they did not carry warrants for the arrest of the Kellys and they were heavily armed.

“Had Ned Kelly’s defence of ‘self-defence’ been presented at trial by a competent lawyer, then he, in my opinion, could justify a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to himself and would have been so acquitted of murder,” Mr Suta said.

“Henry Bindon never appeared in another significant case after Ned Kelly’s trial.

“I for one would welcome a public ceremony to put to rest the remains of an Australian hero who stood up for injustice and protected his family and the downtrodden.”