The applicant complained that his request for his chosen representative to be designated official defence counsel had been refused.
Held: The interests of justice did not require that the applicant’s chosen counsel be appointed official defence counsel. The application was declared inadmissible. The applicant was still represented by the same counsel whom he wished to have designated as official defence counsel. The reason behind the request related to the payment of counsel’s fees from public resources. But that made no difference. What was important was, in the words of the judgment, that he had not put forward ‘any grounds making a different procedural approach necessary to ensure [that his] rights of . . defence’ were secured.
Citations:
6190/09, [2009] ECHR 2172
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Maguire, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 21-Mar-2018
The appellant faced a criminal trial. He was granted legal aid for two counsel. He asked for two particular junior counsel, but the certificate required him to instruct leading counsel and a junior. He objected that this deprived him of the right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.392810