(New Zealand) The court considered the effect of failure of defence counsel on trial. Counsel had elected not to call alibi evidence in the face of his client’s instructions to do so.
Held: ‘The reason, it appears, was that counsel thought the proposed evidence unreliable and that it would be improper for him and detrimental to the applicant for it to be called. It is not for this Court to question counsel’s judgement about that, or to comment upon the evidence ourselves. But the plain unvarnished fact is that counsel most certainly had no right to disregards his [the applicant’s] instructions. Following any advice he thought it proper to give his client, his duty was either to act on the instructions he then received or to withdraw from the case.’
Citations:
[1985] 1 NZLR 106, (1984) 1 CRNZ 215
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.226131