Should the Right to a Fair Trial Give Rise to the Right to ‘Adequate’ Representation at the State’s Expense?

3847 Words16 Pages
Case Note: R v Chaouk [2013] VSC 48 Date of judgement: 15 February 2013 Matwali Chaouk v Department of Public Prosecutions I Part ONE A Introduction The case of R v Chaouk [2013] VSC 48 ('Chaouk') is a landmark decision in that it sets a legal precedent for the way in which a trial may be determined to be unfair. By broadening the interpretation of legal representation, Lasry J extends the circumstances in which a judge may stay a trial. B Facts The case concerns the actions of Matwali Chaouk on 15 November 2009. Chaouk was charged with the attempted murder of Sabet Hadara and recklessly engaging in conduct which endangered the lives of Sabet Hadara, Natalie Camilleri and Antonio Sawan (one count each). Chaouk was alleged to have fired a number of gunshots which hit the windscreen of a vehicle carrying the above mentioned victims. After the alleged shooting took place the accused was alleged to have sped off followed by a second vehicle filled with witnesses. The accused was thought to have disposed of the gun by passing it to an acquaintance in the second vehicle. The incident was not reported by the victims, but rather by Sawan’s mother the day after the incident occurred. The police did not examine the vehicles involved and the windscreen was destroyed before it could be inspected. The key issue to be examined in the trial was whether the prosecution was able to prove that the incident did take place and that Chaouk fired the gun. The defence’s position was that the accused was not present, did not fire any shots and did not meet with another vehicle to dispose of the weapon. C Procedural History This was the first instance of this case appearing before the courts. The trial was due to commence on 11 February 2013, however certain matters arose that raised uncertainty about when a jury would be empaneled, thus causing a

More about Should the Right to a Fair Trial Give Rise to the Right to ‘Adequate’ Representation at the State’s Expense?

Open Document