Where counsel’s conduct is called in question, the general principle requires the court to focus on the impact of the faulty conduct on the trial and result.
Citations:
[1993] 1 WLR 1181
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Boodram v The State PC 10-Apr-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant’s counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to . .
Cited – Kizza Sealey and Marvin Headley v The State PC 14-Oct-2002
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction. He said that his counsel had failed to ensure that the judge should mention the fact that he was of previous good character in defending him.
Cited – Teeluck and John v The State PC 23-Mar-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that his defence had been incompetent in having failed to require the judge to give a good character direction to the jury.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Recent cases . .
Cited – Anderson v HM Advocate HCJ 1996
The court considered the effect on a conviction of a failure by defence counsel. After considering the authorities: ‘It can only be said to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice if it has deprived the accused of his right to a fair trial. That . .
Cited – Bally Sheng Balson v The State PC 2-Feb-2005
PC (Dominica) The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed the conviction.
Held: The case did not fall within the case of Anderson, and counsel’s failure was not such as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Legal Professions
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219687