The Crown brought an application to remove the accused's defence counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest.
One of the defence counsel had previously represented a former suspect who was initially charged with the same murder in 1998 before being cleared by DNA and fingerprint evidence.
The Crown argued counsel would be unable to effectively challenge the forensic evidence or advance a third-party suspect defence without implicating the former client.
The court dismissed the application, finding that a third-party suspect defence pointing to the former client was not realistically available and that counsel could effectively challenge the forensic evidence without implicating him.
The accused's right to counsel of choice was upheld.
