Re Boodhoo (wasted costs order) [2007] EWCA Crim 14, [2007] All ER (D) 219 (Jan)
The defendant failed to attend his trial. The defence sought an adjournment but the judge refused. The defence team withdrew. The judge made a wasted costs order against the defence solicitor.
HELD
“Fundamental questions of trust between lawyers and litigants arise when a defendant absents himself, as do practical questions as to the conduct of the trial. The role of the independent professional advocate in the administration of justice must be borne in mind and also the need not to undermine it by illegitimate pressures.
Of course, we do not wish to discourage solicitors or counsel from giving all possible help to the court and there are likely to be cases in which legal representatives feel able to continue in the absence of the lay client and that it is appropriate for them to do so. An example might be where it can properly be inferred that a defendant expects them to do so in his absence. Another…might be when a legal point is available which will, in itself, defeat the prosecution case.
These examples are not of course exhaustive. The discretion to withdraw should be respected where the legal representatives genuinely believe that, having regard to the defendant’s best interests, that defendant cannot properly be represented by them. The rules on legal aid do also allow for the appointment by the court of different counsel to represent an absent defendant, counsel without the baggage of earlier instructions. There may be occasions on which that course is appropriate.” (paras 49 and 50, per Lord Justice Pill.)
