In Ehrlich v CEO, Legal Aid Board (2005), [1] an important case in South African criminal procedure, the accused was convicted and sentenced on charges of indecent assault. He applied for legal representation at State expense in order to prosecute an appeal against both conviction and sentence. Various representatives of the Legal Aid Board, as well as counsel approached directly by the applicant, concluded that there were no prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the LAB declined to provide representation at State expense.
The applicant then sought an order reviewing and setting aside this decision. He contended that he was entitled to assistance based on his right to legal representation at State expense.
The court noted that the Constitution entitled accused persons to legal representation at State expense if substantial injustice would otherwise result. The Board was required to determine whether a refusal to grant legal representation would result in substantial injustice to the applicant.
The Board's decision had not been arbitrary or capricious; it had considered the opinions of its own officers as well as that of outside counsel, all of whom were satisfied that there were no prospects of success on appeal. The Board was therefore entitled to conclude that a refusal to provide representation would not result in substantial injustice, especially when it was borne in mind that the Board's primary source of funds was the public purse, upon which there was substantial demand.
Therefore, the application was dismissed.
 | This article relating to case law in South Africa is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.
Legal aid is the provision of assistance to people who are unable to afford legal representation and access to the court system. Legal aid is regarded as central in providing access to justice by ensuring equality before the law, the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial. This article describes the development of legal aid and its principles, primarily as known in Europe, the Commonwealth of Nations and in the United States.
Trial in absentia is a criminal proceeding in a court of law in which the person being tried is not present. In absentia is Latin for "in (the) absence". Its interpretation varies by jurisdiction and legal system.
Jean Kambanda is a Rwandan former politician who served as the Prime Minister of Rwanda in the caretaker government from the start of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. He is the only head of government to plead guilty to genocide, in the first group of such convictions since the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide came into effect in 1951.
Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established that a person accused of serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair.
Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states.
In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Historically, however, not all countries have always recognized the right to counsel. The right is often included in national constitutions. Of the 194 constitutions currently in force, 153 have language to this effect.
The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.
The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.
The Veterans' Review Board (VRB) is a statutory body within the Australian Government's Veterans' Affairs portfolio. The role of the VRB is to conduct merits review of certain decisions under the Veteran's Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) (the VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth). The objective of the Board is to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick.<s133A VEA>
In Hlantlalala & Others v Dyanti NO & Another 1999 (2) SACR 541 (SCA); [1999] 4 All SA 472 (SCA) an important case in South African criminal procedure, the accused were a group of women from a rural area involved in a dispute regarding entitlement to use a piece of land. The women went on to the land and harvested mielies. The complainant charged them with theft.
Fraser v ABSA Bank Limited is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa with import for South African criminal procedure. It concerns the interpretation of chapter 5 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998, dealing with the restraint and confiscation of property that constitutes the proceeds of crime. It was heard on 23 May 2006 and decided on 15 December 2006 with a unanimous judgment written by Justice Johann van der Westhuizen.
In the United States, a public defender is a lawyer appointed by the courts and provided by the state or federal governments to represent and advise those charged with a crime or crimes who cannot afford to hire a private attorney. Public defenders are full-time attorneys employed by the state or federal governments. The public defender system is one of several types of criminal legal aid, the most common other system being appointed private counsel paid for by the government.
Legal aid in Germany is "embedded in the court system and is seen as a part of this". Germany was the first country to provide free legal aid representation for the poor in 1919, and represents the archetype of the so-called judicare system.
Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.