The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found that requiring a defendant in criminal proceedings to have legal representation does not violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The applicant was a lawyer by training and an auditor by profession. Upon taking up his new profession as an auditor, the applicant was suspended as a lawyer. He nonetheless subsequently appeared as a lawyer in court and made critical remarks of a judge which caused the judge to file a criminal complaint. The applicant sought to represent himself, however he was refused. The applicant therefore alleged violation of Article 6 of the ECHR, which protects the right to a fair trial.
The ECtHR looked at Article 6§3(c), which confers on a person charged with a criminal offence the right "to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing". Notwithstanding the importance of the relationship of confidence between a lawyer and his client, the latter right was not considered to be absolute. The Court noted that it is necessarily subject to certain limitations where free legal aid is concerned and also where it is for the courts to decide whether the interests of justice require that the accused be defended by counsel appointed by them.
Under Portuguese law, defendants in criminal proceedings must have legal representation if they are at risk of a custodial sentence and this was seen to fall within the margin of appreciation of Member States. The majority view of the Court was that the mandatory representation rule was justified in its aim to ensure proper administration of justice and a fair trial respecting the right of the accused to equality of arms. The rule also assumed that a defendant would be better defended objectively by someone not personally affected by the case and who is technically prepared, which was considered of particular significance given the previous behaviour of the applicant.
The Court noted that the applicant had a number of ways of participating in proceedings, and maintaining control over their progress, including requesting a change of counsel. Taking this into consideration, along with the margin of appreciation granted to States, the Court rejected a violation of Article 6.
Click here for full judgment in Correia De Matos v. Portugal.