Can a defense advocate remain in the case after losing trust?

The issue raised by the local court regarding the advocate's responsibility to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the bar due to improper procedural conduct and the defendant's refusal to accept him on these grounds makes it impossible to review the case with the participation of this defense advocate.

This was noted by the Cassation Criminal Court when it overturned the appeal court's ruling in case No. 390/26/23, according to Law and Business.

In this case, the court of first instance found the person guilty and sentenced him under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code to 5 years in prison. The appellate court left this sentence unchanged.

In the cassation appeal, the prosecutor stated that the court of appeal had violated the defendant's right to defense by not considering his motion to replace the defense attorney appointed to him with another and continuing the criminal proceedings with the participation of a defense attorney whose competence the defendant had questioned and distrusted.

The Criminal Court of Cassation pointed out that, as a general rule provided for in Article 42(3)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a suspect or defendant has the right to refuse a defense attorney at any stage of the criminal proceedings.

However, during the criminal proceedings against the defendant, the court of appeal did not comply with these legal requirements.

At the same time, the case materials show that the defendant's doubts about proper defense were not unfounded, since the local court raised the issue of the advocate's responsibility before the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the bar in connection with his improper procedural conduct while performing his professional duties, including when the defendant was in custody. Therefore, the KKS stated that this required the court of appeal to exercise particular diligence in resolving this issue, which was not done.

In these circumstances, the KKS concluded that the court of appeal had committed significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law, in particular Part 2 of Article 54, Articles 22 and 412 of the CPC, which led to a restriction of the convicted person's right to defense.