英语论文网

counsel was subjected to an identification parade. The respondent argued that the identification parade violated his rights against self-incrimination and his right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court agreed that his right to counsel was breached and quashed the conviction. It is evident from that the right to an effective counsel is crucial to the occurrence of a fair trial, as counsel duties involved planning and strategizing the direction of the defense.

Antoine [31] contends that the right to legal representation is vital to an accused person securing an adequate remedy in law. She identifies persons who are facing capital charges and serious crimes as those who are most likely to have no legal representation. This is so because the majority of persons who commit crimes are usually from a socially deprived background. Thus, these persons are usually provided with legal aid. However, legal aid in the Commonwealth Caribbean has serious disadvantages. She purports that often times the accused is subjected to poor quality legal service. These came in various forms such as being provided with inexperienced lawyers, poor preparation and nonchalant attitudes by the lawyers. Given these deficiencies, it would be understandable for Mrs. Widow to reject a legal aid counsel and attempt to locate a counsel of her choice who may provide her with a more reliable service.

In Merry’s case, it should be noted that her lawyer declined to represent her not because of a lack of payment but because he wanted more money. There was no issue of witnesses being unavailable if the matter was postponed as Merry Widow had not requested an inordinately long time to locate a lawyer, but only a week or two and thus there was no chance that the delay was going to be indefinite as happened in Robinson. Further, the absence of a counsel that would have guided the proceedings from the beginning left Merry without the necessary support to defend her case. The trial judge’s failure to adjourn after counsel withdrew did not provide her with time to locate a counsel and have adequate preparation for a skilled defense. In all the circumstances, Mrs. Widow’s right to legal representation may have been breached.

CONCLUSION

The constitutional rights which are the grounds for Merry Widow’s appeal are not absolute and are largely dependent on the prevailing circumstances. In order for her to succeed in establishing a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time, she must satisfy the various criteria laid down in case law. Notably, the State did play a significant role in the delay Mrs. Widow faced before her matter was brought to trial. This will weigh heavily against the prosecution case as such delays are often seen as unjustifiable and inexcusable. However, Mrs. Widow was not without fault as she did not demand or attempt to get her matter called before the courts. Notwithstanding the institutional delays, eight years is the normal time it takes before a trial is heard, and Merry’s case is a simple one where it would be difficult to establish prejudice to her as a result of the delay. All these circumstances, measured against the imprecision that surrounds what constitutes ‘a fair hearing within a reasonable time’, may prove difficult for Mrs. Widow’s claim on this ground to succeed.

However, there may be more success in establishing that her right to legal representation has been