In a recent case, dealing with the confirmation of a death sentence, the High Court of Delhi stated in no unclear terms that the right to be represented and defended by an able counsel was a well-established right in the common law jurisdiction. The High Court inter-alia observed as under;
107. None can belittle the right of every accused to be fairly and adequately represented in a criminal trial, especially where capital sentence is involved. Counsels play an important role in the resolution of issues in an adversarial system. Every accused has a right to meet the case of the prosecution on even terms. Following observations of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision reported as Jon Richard Argersinger v Raymond Hamlin (1972) 407 US 25 as approved by our Supreme Court in the decision reported as Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 544 epitomize the quintessence of this processual facet:
" The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate or those of feeble intellect. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries but it is in ours. From the very beginning our State and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him."
108. Fair assessment of a counsel's performance has many inherent difficulties. Different counsels would defend not in the same way. No mechanical rule can be applied. To our mind, the test in the decision of US Supreme Court reported as Strickland v Washington (1984) 466 US 68 as laid down by Justice O'Connor is the one to be applied; as extracted from the head note:-
A. The proper standard for judging attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance, considering all the circumstances. When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel's assistance, the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential, and a fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct fall within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.
B. With regard to the required showing of prejudice, the proper standard requires the defendant to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional efforts, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A Reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. A court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury.
C. A number of practical considerations are important for the application of the standards set forth above. The standards do not establish mechanical rules; the ultimate focus of inquiry must be on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result is being challenged. A court need not first determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, that course should be followed."
No comments:
Post a Comment