The following are incidences where there are special ethical considerations to take into account before the duty solicitor can accept instructions to conduct a guilty plea.
It is not unethical for a duty solicitor to act on a guilty plea where the defendant has changed instructions from not guilty to guilty as long as:
| NEVER MISLEAD THE COURT |
|---|
| The duty solicitor must not mislead the Court by putting a version of the facts forward which they know, from the defendant’s instructions, to be false. Defendants who change instructions from not guilty to guilty may invent a more flattering scenario than the facts allow. The duty solicitor should politely but firmly decline to put those instructions to the Court. |
As a general rule, it is preferable for a solicitor to act for one party, but this is not always possible in the duty solicitor situation. The duty solicitor should only act for co-charged defendants on a guilty plea where this will not cause a conflict of interest, and therefore:
See South Australian Legal Practitioners Conduct Rules r 11.
A defendant is entitled to be sentenced on the version of the facts most favourable to them [see Law v Deed [1970] SASC 527 for this principle]. Moreover, the duty solicitor has the same duty as any defending counsel to put the instructions of the defendant to the Court. However, some instructions as to circumstances may be patently fanciful and self-serving while falling just short of denial. In this situation, the duty solicitor needs to politely and firmly explain they are not prepared to advance that version to the Magistrate. The defendant may then choose to appear unrepresented, or instruct the duty solicitor to act, but not to put those particular instructions to the Court. In the latter case, the duty solicitor should record the defendant’s instruction in writing and have the defendant sign it before acting.
Instructions to conduct a defendant’s plea of guilty should not be accepted where:
| NEGOTIATING WITH PROSECUTION |
|---|
|
Since R v Nemer (2003) 87 SASR 168; [2003] SASC 375, prosecution are generally not amenable to negotiation at the bar table. However, time permitting, it is important for the duty solicitor to explore with prosecution whether there is room for negotiation in relation to the facts in the allegations, where the defendant does not agree with these facts. In doing so, it is important for the duty solicitor to take care not to disclose the defendant’s instructions, in case the matter does not resolve that day.
For example: there is an allegation of assault, which states that the defendant punched the victim five times. The defendant instructs he agrees he assaulted the victim, but that he punched the victim three times, not five times as alleged.
Do not say to the prosecutor: ‘He admits three punches but not all five’.
Often the only relevant fact is that more than one punch was delivered. Say to the prosecutor: ‘If you allege that the victim was punched (or multiple punches, or several punches) then the matter will resolve today'.
In this way, you are not tying the defendant to any admissions, but you may still successfully resolve the matter. In addition, you have not indicated that the defendant admits any assault at all. You have put a hypothetical proposition to the prosecutor. You should attempt to resolve such matters in this way whether the defendant is in custody or at liberty.
REMEMBER the starting place in criminal injuries compensation claims by victims is the apprehension report, so notes need to be taken of the agreed basis of the plea. |
We embrace diversity and welcome all people, irrespective of culture, faith, sexual orientation and gender identity.
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Legal Services acknowledges Aboriginal people as the Traditional Owners and ongoing occupants of the lands and waters in South Australia and we respect their spiritual, cultural and heritage beliefs. We recognise their continuing connection to land, water and community and pay our deep respect to Elders past and present.
.png)
.png)
