Privy Council
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838605000104 |
| Published date | 01 February 1986 |
| Date | 01 February 1986 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PRIVY
COUNCIL
RIGHT
TO
LEGAL
REPRESENTATION
Robinsonv. The Queen
Although the Judicial Committee were divided
three:
two in
Robinson v. The Queen [1985J 3W.L.R. 84, both sides were agreed
on one thing:
"an
unhappy story" (per Lord Roskill) and
"We
devoutly hope that the facts of this case are never to be repeated in
the administration of criminal justice in Jamaica" (per Lord
Scarman and Lord Edmund-Davies). The principal actors in the
saga were the appellant, who was jointly charged with murder, his
two counsel and the trialjudge. The background to the case was that
from the defendant's arrest inAugust 1978 to his trial in March 1981
hiscase had to be adjourned 19 times atthe requestofthe prosecution
owing to the absence of the principal witness for the prosecution.
When the witness, named Irving, was finally located, the trial
commenced. However, the two counsel retained by the defendant
did not at first appear and when one did so, he asked that both be
allowed to withdraw from the case because they had not been paid.
Although the judge refused this request and offered instead a legal
aid assignment, counsel in effect absented themselves. Fearful that
Irving would disappear once again if the case were adjourned, the
judge proceeded with the trial notwithstanding that the defendant
was unrepresented. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced
to death. The Privy Council had to consider whether in these
circumstances the defendant had been deprived of his right under
section 20(6) of the Jamaican Constitution to be "permitted to
defend himself
...
by a legal representative of his choice".
The advice of the majority, delivered by Lord Roskill, was that
the right under section 20(6) was not an absolute one and was to be
balanced against other factors. In particular, section 13 of the
Constitution allowed limitations to ensure that the enjoyment of
constitutional rights did not prejudice
"the
publicinterest".In Lord
Roskill's view, the crucial word in section 20(6) was "permitted".
The judge would have "permitted" the defendant to appear by the
55
To continue reading
Request your trial