Accused charged with cocaine trafficking offences sought a Rowbotham order staying proceedings pending state-funded counsel, arguing they lacked the financial means to retain counsel and required representation for a fair trial.
The court reviewed the established Rowbotham criteria requiring denial of legal aid, inability to afford counsel, and necessity of counsel for a fair trial.
The court found the first accused failed to provide credible or sufficient evidence of indigence and demonstrated access to significant income and discretionary spending inconsistent with financial hardship.
The second accused had been granted a legal aid certificate but sought funding for counsel of choice, which did not meet the Rowbotham threshold.
The court further held that the applicants failed to establish that the case involved sufficient complexity to require state-funded counsel.
