Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839806200605 |
| Published date | 01 December 1998 |
| Date | 01 December 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE
OF
THE
PRIVY
COUNCIL
THE RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION
Ricketts v R
The constitution of Jamaica provides that every person has a right to the
protection of the law and that, when charged with a criminal offence, he
has a right to defend himself in person or by a legal representative
of
his
own choice. In Ricketts v R
[1998]
1 WLR 1016, an appeal to the Privy
Council raised the question whether the trial was unfair in that the
defendant's case was not properly put to the trial court and equally no
case for the appeal was properly
put
to the Court of Appeal by the legal
representative assigned to him. The appellant was convicted
of
the capital
murder of a man in the presence of his wife and son in their house, which
had been invaded by three men who were armed and demanded money
The son identified the appellant as the man who had shot his father. On
appeal, a second objection to the conviction was put forward, namely that
the identification parade had not been properly conducted. The Board
made important pronouncements of principle on both grounds of appeal.
At the trial, counsel had failed to appear at the start and the judge
decided to empanel the jury in his absence and then to adjourn until
counsel appeared. Although the defendant said that he had heard
everything which the judge had said, he was silent when asked to plead;
nor did he answer when told that he could challenge any of the jurors.
When counsel appeared, he gave him no instructions and counsel was able
to report to the court no more than that the defendant had stated that he
had not understood what the judge had said. Although counsel suggested
that the defendant might have a mental problem, no arrangements were
made for him to be seen by a doctor, and the police evidence was that he
had behaved normally while in their custody. Counsel was permitted by
the judge to withdraw, on the ground that he had been unable to get
instructions or information from the accused. Throughout the trial, the
defendant, although frequently interrupting (so that from time to time he
was gagged), played no other part in the proceedings.
In Robinson v R
[1985]
AC 956, the Privy Council stressed that the
Jamaican constitution does not state that every defendant charged with a
criminal offence must be legally represented at his trial: his right is that he
is 'permitted' such representation. Here, he had a legal representative, but
refused to co-operate with him, not on the ground that he objected to that
particular member of the Bar, but because he did not wish to play any
part in the trial. In Dunkley v R
[1995]
1 AC 419, it was said that where a
person on a capital charge is, through no fault of his own, left without
representation, an adjournment should be granted to allow him the
opportunity to obtain fresh representation. Here, however, the finding of
the jury that he was mute of malice meant that his
not
being represented
could
not
be said to be 'through no fault of his own'.
568
To continue reading
Request your trial