A 2007 case before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of England and Wales is instructive on the following issues: change of counsel, adjournment, withdrawal, professional duties of counsel and safety of conviction.

The case is R v Ulcay; R v Toygun (2007) EWCA Crim 2379. The relevant facts and judgment of the presiding Court of Appeal president have been set out here.

On whether the conviction of accused person/appellant was safe, His Lordship said:

“We have re-examined the safety of this conviction. The case against the appellant was overwhelming. The logical explanation for his determination to manipulate the trial process is that he understood perfectly clearly that the prospects of an acquittal were vanishingly slight.

“So, at the end of the prosecution case, he sought to change his story, to reject the defence case statement, and to withdraw the formal admissions made on his behalf by competent lawyers acting on his instructions.

“His trial was as fair as he allowed it to be. The conviction is safe. The appeal is dismissed.”

Was Najib Razak’s appeal process in the Federal Court similarly as fair as he allowed it to be, and was his conviction safe?

Eight former Bar presidents think so. – August 31, 2022.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.