(Supreme Court of Mauritius) The appellant had appeared three times before the court before the date of trial. On the morning of trial he produced a letter from a member of the Bar stating that he had just been instructed for the defence, but as he was engaged elsewhere and had not had time to study the case he must ask for a postponement. The trial judge refused.
Held: His decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. After referring to section 10(2) of the Constitution: ‘The all important words of paragraph (d) in my view are ‘shall be permitted to defend himself’. The duty on the Court is clear and is impliedly twofold: an accused party must be given a reasonable opportunity to retain the services of a legal representative of his choice and, at the trial of the case, the legal representative must be given full latitude – in accordance with the law of this country – to defend the accused. On the other hand, the duty to retain the services of a legal representative of his choice lies on an accused party and the words ‘of his choice’ are here again important: they necessarily connote the idea that, if he has a wide choice from among the members of the Bar, the responsibility for the choice is his, not that of the Court. The duty cast on the Court is purely a passive one in so far as the presence of counsel at the trial is concerned, while the responsibility for the briefing of the legal representative and ensuring his presence in Court devolves from the very words of the Constitution on the accused party.’ The provisions of the Constitution were never intended to be a cloak for the laches of an accused party.’
Judges:
Rivalland CJ
Citations:
[1968] MR 122
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Mohammadally v The State 2000
(Supreme Court of Mauritius) The appellant had dispensed with the services of her counsel four days before the date of trial and had not taken steps to engage another. The trial judge refused to grant her a postponement, on the ground that she could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.223461