QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HAYCOCKS||Claimant|
|WORCESTER CROWN COURT||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Jonathan Hall (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant int p
Crown Copyright ©
"The Appellant doesn't like his Counsel's interpretation of the law, and doesn't like the way in which his Counsel proposes to run the case. That is his privilege, but it is not going to result in this case being adjourned. If the Appellant wishes to dispense with the services of his Counsel, then his representation order will be revoked, and we will press on with the appeal, and he will have to do it himself - that is if he wishes to pursue it. That is the position."
The judge then confirmed with Mr Haycocks that he did indeed wish to carry on with the appeal, which then ensued.
"(1) Where a representation order has been granted an application may be made to the court before which the proceedings are heard to select a representative in place of a representative previously selected, and any such application shall state the grounds on which it is made.
"(2) The court may:
(a) grant the application where:
(i) the representative considers himself to be under a duty to withdraw from the case in accordance with his professional rules of conduct and, in such a case, the representative shall provide details of the nature of such duty;
(ii) there is a breakdown in the relationship between the assisted person and the representative such that effective representation can no longer be provided and, in such a case, the representative shall provide details of the nature of such breakdown;
(iii) through circumstances beyond his control, the representative is no longer able to represent the assisted person; or
(iv) some other substantial compelling reason exists."
And the regulation specifically provides that unless one of those situations exists, the court shall refuse the application.