Matara, R (on the application of) v Brent Magistrates' Court

Legal representation may be required in the interests of justice where a defendant’s limited command of English prevents effective participation in a criminal trial, particularly where language comprehension is central to the defence. The provision of an interpreter does not, by itself, remove the need for legal representation. The statutory criteria must be considered in the context of the overall fairness of the trial, including whether the defendant can understand the proceedings and state his own case.

The claimant faced criminal proceedings for failing to provide roadside and evidential breath specimens. He maintained that his limited English prevented him from understanding what was required and formed part of his defence. Brent Magistrates’ Court refused legal aid, and a renewed application was rejected by a District Judge and later by the magistrates. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the decision failed to address the statutory interests-of-justice criteria, the advice of counsel, and the effect of language difficulties on his ability to conduct his defence.

1. The application for judicial review succeeded. The refusal of legal aid was quashed and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted Bench for reconsideration.
2. Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Access to Justice Act 1999, the question is whether representation is required in the interests of justice. The statutory factors in paragraph 5(2) must be considered as part of that overall assessment.
3. The requirement that criminal proceedings be conducted in a language understood by the defendant is one aspect of the requirement that the defendant be able to participate effectively in the proceedings, as required by the fair-trial guarantee in Article 6 of the ECHR. It does not, by itself, determine whether legal representation is necessary.
4. The claimant’s inability to understand what was said when he was arrested was central to his proposed defence. It raised a serious issue about his ability to understand the proceedings and state his own case, and about the overall fairness of the trial.
5. The availability of an interpreter did not answer that issue. An interpreter could assist with the trial proceedings, but could not address the claimant’s case that he had not understood the instructions or warnings given at the time of the alleged offences.
6. The written advice of counsel raised a compelling and unanswered argument that representation was required in the interests of justice. The magistrates’ conclusion that an interpreter would be provided, and that there was no relevant complexity or substantial legal issue, failed adequately to engage with that argument and was unreasonable.
7. The proposed additional argument concerning cross-examination of police witnesses was not considered because it had not been raised in counsel’s advice or before the defendant court.

Not stated in the judgment.