The Right To Counsel: Can States Deny It?

The right to counsel is a crucial aspect of criminal law, ensuring that defendants have legal assistance during their trial. While the specifics may vary across jurisdictions, the right to counsel is generally regarded as a fundamental component of a fair trial. In the United States, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in federal prosecutions, and the Supreme Court has provided further clarity on when this right attaches during the legal process. In other countries, such as Brazil, China, and Australia, the right to counsel is also recognized, but the specifics of its implementation differ. This topic explores the complexities of ensuring access to legal representation and protecting the rights of defendants during criminal proceedings.

Right to counsel in the US

In the US, the right to counsel refers to a criminal defendant's right to have a lawyer assist in their defence, even if they cannot afford an attorney. This is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel in federal prosecutions. However, this right was not applied to state prosecutions for felony offences until 1963, in Gideon v. Wainwright.

The right to counsel does not apply to all cases, however. For certain misdemeanours, there is no guaranteed right to counsel. For example, criminal defendants in misdemeanour cases who are not sentenced to actual imprisonment do not have a right to appointed counsel, even if that conviction is later used to enhance sentencing for another crime.

The right to counsel also does not apply to inmates suspected of committing crimes while in prison (e.g. murdering another inmate) prior to indictment, because this happens before the "initiation of adversary judicial proceedings."

One area of controversy related to the right to counsel is the question of when the right attaches, or in other words, when in the process of criminal prosecution the defendant gains the right to counsel. In Brewer v. Williams (1977), the Supreme Court held that a defendant gains the right to an attorney "at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment."

In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to counsel implies the right to effective counsel. In Nix v. Whiteside (1986), the Court found that an attorney in a criminal trial has a duty not to allow their client to give perjured information. The ethical duty of an attorney not to allow perjured information supersedes a duty of zealous advocacy. The right to effective counsel typically entails that the attorney engages in zealous advocacy for the defendant, but there are exceptions to what attorneys may do for their defendants.

Right to counsel in Australia

In Australia, suspects and defendants have the right to legal representation during an investigation and trial. This means that individuals under investigation have the right to have an attorney present during questioning, except in certain circumstances. For example, under s 23G of the Crimes Act, an arrested person has a right to communicate with a lawyer during questioning, but this does not apply if an accomplice of the person may try to avoid apprehension or if contacting the lawyer may lead to the concealment, fabrication, or destruction of evidence, or the intimidation of a witness.

Australian law does not recognise a right to publicly-funded legal defence, but it does acknowledge that in the absence of counsel, an accused person may not receive a fair trial as mandated by law. Each state and territory in Australia has a Legal Aid Commission that provides legal services in criminal, civil, and family law matters to those who meet their threshold criteria, particularly regarding income. Additionally, anyone accused of a Commonwealth or federal crime has the right to request a judge for counsel within two weeks of committal, and the judge may appoint a lawyer if they are convinced that the defendant cannot afford one.

While the positive right to be provided with a lawyer at the state's expense is not a traditional common law right, the courts have the power to stay criminal proceedings if they believe that the absence of legal representation will result in an unfair trial. This is because the right to a fair trial is considered a central pillar of Australia's criminal justice system.

The Law Council of Australia advocates for access to justice as a fundamental right for all Australians, regardless of their means. They emphasise the importance of removing financial, social, and cultural barriers to ensure true equality in the justice system.

Right to counsel in China

The right to counsel in China is guaranteed by Article 125 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and Article 11 of the 1996 Criminal Procedure Law. This right, however, only comes into effect once a case goes to trial and does not exist during the investigative stage. During the investigation, a suspect only has the right to hire a lawyer to assist in securing bail, making procedural complaints, and seeking details from the police on the alleged crime. The right to counsel in China is not absolute, and there are certain restrictions. For example, in cases involving state secrets, a lawyer can only be appointed with the permission of the investigating body.

Chinese law allows courts to appoint a lawyer for defendants who cannot afford one. It is mandatory for courts to appoint legal representation for minors, the blind, deaf, or mute, and anyone facing the death penalty. The Chinese government operates legal aid centers for indigent defendants, and provincial governments set the criteria for who qualifies for legal assistance. While China has endorsed a policy of promoting full-coverage legal representation for individuals facing criminal charges since 2017, there are concerns about the quality and effectiveness of criminal legal representation in the country due to the limitations placed on defense counsel's ability to provide meaningful legal assistance and the constraints within China's criminal justice system.

The right to counsel is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial and is recognized in various international conventions and national constitutions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, was the first international document to affirm this right. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted in 1966, further emphasizes this right, which China has signed but not yet ratified.

In comparison, other countries like Canada, Brazil, and Australia have also enshrined the right to counsel in their legal systems, with some variations. Canada guarantees this right upon "arrest and detention," while Brazil ensures that all defendants have the right to counsel, regardless of their economic status. Australia provides legal representation during the investigation and trial, but it does not recognize a right to publicly funded legal defense.

Right to counsel in Brazil and Canada

In Canada, the right to counsel is guaranteed under Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms upon "arrest and detention", as well as the right to habeas corpus. The police must inform those arrested or detained of their right to speak to counsel and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to do so. This means that detainees have the right to be informed of their right to retain and instruct counsel "without delay", which has been interpreted to mean "immediately".

However, this does not include an absolute right to have a lawyer present during interrogation unless the accused is under the age of 18. In some cases, the police may be allowed to question individuals without the presence of a lawyer. For example, police officers may ask preliminary questions, such as asking an individual to identify their room in a shared residence before executing a search warrant, without infringing on the right to counsel. Additionally, while there is a right to counsel during legal proceedings that may result in imprisonment, such as bail hearings or trials, this right is not absolute. The police may delay or restrict access to a lawyer in certain circumstances, such as when immediate action is necessary to protect public safety or prevent the destruction of evidence.

In Brazil, the right to counsel is enshrined in the 1988 Federal Constitution, which provides that all citizens have a right of access to a lawyer of their choice and guarantees free legal aid for those who cannot afford a private lawyer. However, in practice, access to a lawyer at the pre-trial stage is only available to those who can afford it. This is because there is no pre-trial custody hearing in Brazil – individuals are questioned at the police station, without a public defender, and are then transferred to prison within 48 hours. They have their first contact with a public defender on the date of the trial hearing.

Furthermore, while the Brazilian Constitution guarantees free legal aid, the country's high income inequality has resulted in challenges in providing quality legal aid to the disadvantaged population. For example, in the city of São Paulo, public defender services have been described as inadequate. At the end of 2012, there were only 500 public defenders qualified to practice in civil and criminal law for the entire state, serving a potential client population of 29 million people.

Denial of right to counsel

The right to counsel refers to a defendant's legal right to have a lawyer assist in their defence, even if they cannot afford to pay for an attorney. This is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. While the right to counsel is often included in national constitutions, it has not always been recognised by all countries.

In the United States, the right to counsel is embedded in the Sixth Amendment but has been clarified through case law. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel in federal prosecutions. However, the right to counsel was not applied to state prosecutions for felony offences until 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright. For certain misdemeanours, there is not a guaranteed right to counsel.

In the case of Brewer v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that a defendant gains the right to an attorney "at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment". The Supreme Court has also ruled that the right to counsel implies the right to an effective attorney. In United States v. Parker, the court found that the defendant was denied his right to counsel because the court conducted an insufficient Faretta inquiry, failing to inquire into the defendant's understanding of the nature of the charges, possible defences, and other issues that might arise at trial.

In Australia, suspects and defendants have the right to legal representation during investigation and trial, although there are exceptions to this right. While Australian law does not recognise a right to publicly-funded legal defence, each state and territory has a Legal Aid Commission to provide legal services in criminal, civil, and family law matters to those who meet the threshold criteria, particularly regarding income.

In Brazil, the Constitution declares that all defendants have the right to counsel and are entitled to state-funded legal representation in all criminal and civil cases if they cannot pay for an attorney. Similarly, in Canada, the right to counsel is guaranteed upon "arrest and detention", and police must inform those arrested of their right to speak to counsel.

In China, the accused's right to counsel only comes into being once a case goes to trial and does not exist at the investigative stage. A suspect under investigation has a limited right to retain a lawyer to assist in securing bail, making procedural complaints, and seeking details from the police on the nature of the crime alleged.

Frequently asked questions