Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement Article 14(3)(d) was further violated in a capital case where the author had indicated that he wished to be present in person during the appeal proceedings and that he did not want legal aid. This wish was ignored and the appeal was pursued in the presence of a legal aid attorney, who argued the appeal on a ground that the author had not wished to pursue. The Committee noted “with concern that the author was not informed with sufficient advance notice about the date of the hearing of his appeal”, a delay that “jeopardized his opportunities to prepare his appeal and to consult with his court-appointed lawyer, whose identity he did not know until the day of the hearing itself”. His “opportunities to prepare the appeal were further frustrated by the fact that the application for leave to appeal was treated as the hearing of the appeal itself, at which he was not authorized to be present”.109 Failure of lawyer to appear in court: The case of Robinson This situation arose in the Robinson case, where the trial had been postponed several times because the prosecution had problems locating its chief witness. When the witness was finally located and the trial began, the author’s lawyers were not present in court, yet the trial was allowed to proceed and the author had to defend himself. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.110 The Committee based itself on the terms of article 14(3)(d), according to which everyone shall have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require.111 It reiterated that “it is axiomatic that legal assistance be available in capital cases”, and that this is so “even if the unavailability of private counsel is to some degree attributable to the author himself, and even if the provision of legal assistance would entail an adjournment of proceedings”; moreover, this “requirement is not rendered unnecessary by efforts that might otherwise be made by the trial judge to assist the author in handling his defence in the absence of counsel”.112 It followed that in this case “the absence of counsel constituted unfair trial”.113 109 Communication No. 338/1988, L. Simmonds v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 23 October 1992), in UN doc. GAOR, A/48/40 (vol. II), p. 82, para. 8.4. See also a case where the lawyer failed to follow the accused’s instructions: Communication No. 248/1987, G. Campbell v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 30 March 1992, in UN doc. GAOR, A/47/40, p. 247, para. 6.6. 110 Communication No. 223/1987, F. Robinson v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 30 March 1989), in UN doc. GAOR, A/44/40, pp. 244-245, para. 10.2. 111 Ibid., p. 245, para. 10.3. 112 Ibid., loc. cit. 113 Ibid. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 275