Article 173: Court-Appointed Counsel Before Trial

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 5650/2567 (2024)

   Section 173 sets a mandatory appointment of counsel for cases carrying death or defendants under eighteen (paragraph one) and appointment on request for cases carrying imprisonment (paragraph two); where a case carries no imprisonment penalty, there is no basis to pay a fee to appointed counsel.

   Counsel sought a fee for representing a defendant, but the trial court held the case carried no imprisonment penalty and refused. The Supreme Court set out Section 173 paragraphs one and two, distinguishing mandatory appointment in capital and juvenile cases from request-based appointment in imprisonment cases, and confirmed no fee was payable where the penalty class did not fit.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1225/2566 (2023)

   Under Section 173 paragraph two, in an imprisonment case the court asks the defendant about counsel before trial and, if the defendant declines counsel and pleads guilty, there is no failure to observe the section.

   Before trial the court asked the defendant about counsel; the defendant declined a lawyer and pleaded guilty, and the court read and explained the charge and recorded the plea. The Supreme Court held this satisfied Section 173 paragraph two, which requires the court in imprisonment cases to ask about counsel and appoint one only if the defendant wants it.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8287/2559 (2016)

   The purpose of Section 173 paragraph two is that a defendant in a case carrying imprisonment should have counsel to help conduct his defence. Where the court omitted to ask about counsel, but the defendant later appointed counsel who acted for him until judgment, he was not put at a disadvantage in the case and did not change his plea, there is no need to send the case back for the trial court to ask him about counsel.

   The court of first instance read and explained the charge and took the defendant's plea without first asking whether he had counsel. The Supreme Court held that no remand was needed: on the day fixed for judgment the defendant appointed counsel, who acted for him until judgment, he was shown to have suffered no disadvantage in the case, and he did not change his plea, so his plea of guilty stood.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.