Court of Appeal
Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1995
PROFESSOR TELFORD GEORGES P.
HORACE WALWIN YOUNG J.A.
NICHOLAS J.O. LIVERPOOL J.A.

Mr. F. Lumor for the Appellant.
Mrs. M. Rudolpho for the Crown.

Criminal Appeal - Appellant charged with Aggravated Burglary and Attempted Robbery - Offences carry minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years imprisonment unless special circumstances justify imposition of lesser term - Appellant unrepresented - Adjournment sought - The Director of Public Prosecutions did not oppose - Application refused because there was sufficient time within which to seek legal representation, trial proceeded - Appellant convicted on both counts and sentenced to the minimum of 10 years on each count - Sufficient time to contact legal aid before date of trial not to have been decisive factor regarding adjournment - Appellant was a young person facing serious charges - Interests of justice required granting of adjournment - Refusal of adjournment deprived Appellant of the right to a fair trial - Appeal allowed - Convictions set aside - Sentences quashed - New trial ordered - Bail granted in the sum of $1,000 with a surety in like sum.

J U D G M E N T

The Appellant was charged on an indictment containing two counts ? aggravated burglary and attempted robbery. Each of these offences carry a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years imprisonment unless special circumstances are shown which justify the imposition of a lesser term.

The preliminary inquiry into these charges was concluded on July 17, 1995. The record does not state at what stage the deposition for the hearing was ready.
At the hearing the Appellant appeared unrepresented. He did not have a copy of the depositions. He applied for an adjournment. He said he had been to Legal Aid that day. Legal Aid would be getting a lawyer for him and accordingly he sought an adjournment.

The trial judge pointed out that the preliminary inquiry had been concluded on July 17 and the hearing date was October 17. The Appellant should have consulted Legal Aid earlier.

The Appellant explained that he had a part time job and had been in an accident.

The Director of Public Prosecutions did not oppose to the grant of an adjournment. He left the matter up to the judge who refused the application. In his view the Appellant had enough time to seek legal aid.

The trial proceeded. The Appellant was clearly unable to cross?examine the witnesses and his participation was minimal. He was duly convicted on both counts and sentenced to the minimum term of 10 years on each of the counts.

Although quite obviously there had been time for the Appellant to contact legal aid before the actual date of the trial that should not, in our view, have been the decisive factor. The case was being called for the first time. The Appellant was a young person facing very serious charges. There was clearly a likelihood that a short adjournment would have enabled him to secure legal representation. The Crown was not objecting. The interests of justice required the granting of the adjournment. The refusal of the adjournment deprived him of the right to a fair trial.

We informed Mr. Lumor that in the circumstances we were prepared to allow the appeal, set aside the convictions, quash the sentences and order a new trial. We are satisfied that the interests of justice require a new trial. Having decided on that course it would be unwise to analyse the evidence in any detail as this may prejudicially effect the new trial.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The convictions are set aside and the sentences quashed.

The Appellant will stand trial again on the charges of aggravated burglary and attempted robbery.

Bail is granted in the sum of $1,000.00 with a surety in the like sum.

----------OO----------