The accused brought an application seeking increased legal aid funding for defence counsel to cover the full estimated budget for a constitutional challenge.
The court dismissed the application, finding that while the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure fair trials for indigent accused, the accused's right to a fair trial (not a perfect trial) was not imperiled by the shortfall of approximately $3,000 between the legal aid budget and the defence budget.
The court acknowledged the financial burden on defence counsel accepting legal aid certificates but held that absent evidence that no competent counsel would accept the certificate, the application must fail.
