(Barbados) The appellant argued that the denial of free legal representation at his trial infringed his constitutional rights. He had been faced with a charge of arson, but was told the complexity of the case did not require legal assistance. The trial involved issues as to his competence and the admissibility of his confession. The constitution gave him the right to a fair trial, but provided no right to free legal representation. A scheme had been introduced later.
Held: The constitution must be seen as a living document. Barbados, had, in ratifying international conventions explicitly withheld the right to free representation. The right to a fair trial was not however qualified. Breach of a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial must result in the conviction being quashed. The provision of a right of appeal did not in this case correct the judge’s failure to consider his individual circumstances properly. However a claim for constitutional relief is not an alternative means of challenging a conviction or a judicial decision, nor an additional means where such a challenge, based on constitutional grounds, has been made and rejected. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Murray Stuart-Smith Sir KennethKeith
Citations:
Appeal No 28 0f 2000, [2001] UKPC 56
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Mohammed (Allie) v The State PC 9-Dec-1998
(Trinidad and Tobago) A failure to inform a suspect before interview of his right to see a lawyer did not make the interview inadmissible despite the constitutional infringement. It was not as serious as a failure to give fair trial. The judge’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Aid, Constitutional
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167071