The appellants were convicted of kidnapping and extortion after a retrial where they were self-represented.
They appealed their convictions on several grounds, primarily arguing that the trial judge erred in refusing their request for an adjournment to retain counsel.
The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly balanced the appellants' right to counsel against the need to control the trial process, given the history of delays and the appellants' lack of diligence.
The court also found that the trial judge provided adequate assistance to the self-represented appellants and made no reversible errors regarding evidentiary rulings or sentencing.
A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis that the refusal to grant an adjournment created an appearance of unfairness.
