Court name
Special Court for Sierra Leone
Case number
SCSL 14 of 2004
Case name

Prosecutor v Sam Hinga Norman & Ors - Decision on Application by Court Appointed Counsel for the Second Accused for Right of Audience for Mr. Ianuzzi
Law report citations
Media neutral citation
[2006] SCSL 83


SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE
JOMO KENYATTA
ROAD • FREETOWN • SIERRA LEONE

PHONE: +1 212 963 9915
Extension: 178 7000 or +39 0831 257000 or +232 22 295995

FAX:
Extension: 178 7001 or +39 0831 257001 Extension: 174 6996 or +232 22
295996


THE TRIAL CHAMBER


Before:
Hon. Justice Bankole Thompson, Presiding Judge
Hon. Justice Pierre
Boutet
Hon. Justice Benjamin Mutanga Itoe
Registrar:
Lovemore G. Munlo, SC
Date:
27th of June 2006
PROSECUTOR
Against
Sam Hinga Norman
Moinina Fofana
Allieu
Kondewa

(Case No.SCSL-04-14-T)


Public Document


DECISION ON APPLICATION BY COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR THE
SECOND ACCUSED FOR RIGHT OF AUDIENCE FOR MR. IANUZZI


Office of the Prosecutor:

Court Appointed Counsel for Sam Hinga Norman:
Desmond de Silva
James Johnson
Joseph Kamara

Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi
John Wesley Hall, Jr.
Alusine Sani Sesay


Court Appointed Counsel for Moinina Fofana:


Victor Koppe
Arrow Bockarie
Michiel Pestman


Court Appointed Counsel for Allieu Kondewa:
Charles
Margai
Yada Williams
Ansu Lansana


TRIAL CHAMBER I (“The Chamber”) of the Special
Court for Sierra Leone (“Special Court”) composed of Hon. Justice
Bankole Thompson,
Presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Pierre Boutet and Hon. Justice
Benjamin Mutanga Itoe;


SEIZED OF the “Application for Right of Audience for Mr.
Andrew Ianuzzi” (“Motion”), filed by Court Appointed Counsel
for the Second Accused (“Counsel for Fofana”) on the
25th of May, 2006, where Counsel for Fofana seek leave
of The Chamber, under its inherent jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 73(A) of the
Rules
of Procedure and Evidence of the Special Court (“The Rules”),
to grant Mr. Andrew Ianuzzi, currently a legal assistant
for the Fofana Defence
team, a right of audience to make submissions and lead witnesses before The
Chamber under the supervision
of existing Court Appointed Counsel for Fofana for
the duration of the defence case in this trial;


NOTING the “Prosecution Response to Fofana Application for Right
of Audience of Mr. Andrew Ianuzzi” (“Response”),
filed by the
Office of the Prosecutor (“Prosecution”) on the
30th of May 2006, where the Prosecution submit that,
should The Chamber allow the Motion, it must be satisfied that the Second
Accused
has given his fully informed consent to the granting of the Motion, and
the Second Accused must provide a written waiver of the right
to any subsequent
appeal based on an argument that Mr. Ianuzzi was under-qualified to represent
him;


NOTING the “Reply to Prosecution Response to Fofana Application
for Right of Audience for Mr. Andrew Ianuzzi”, filed by Counsel
for Fofana
on the 31st of May 2006, where Counsel for Fofana
acknowledge the suggestion in the Response as prudent, and submit that it would
be advisable
for a member of the Principal Defender’s staff to obtain the
Second Accused’s written waiver;


CONSIDERING that the right of audience, which involves the right to
appear and be heard in
court,[1] is an
entitlement that is intrinsic to the duty of defence counsel, who are either
assigned by the Principal Defender pursuant to
Rule 45 of the Rules or appointed
by The Chamber;[2]


NOTING that Mr. Ianuzzi is neither assigned counsel nor court
appointed counsel, but a legal assistant answerable to the Defence
Office;[3]


CONSIDERING further that the jurisprudence of international
tribunals does not support the granting of the right of audience to legal
associates who are
not defence
counsel;[4]


NOTING that although the present Motion does not seek to have Mr.
Ianuzzi appointed as counsel, the relief sought in the Motion is a right
inherent to the duties of defence counsel, assigned and appointed;


CONSIDERING that the Motion invokes the inherent jurisdiction of The
Chamber pursuant to the general provision contained in Rule 73(A) of the
Rules,
without specifying how The Chamber’s power to consider the Motion under
Rule 73(A) is applicable in this instance;


CONSIDERING that The Chamber has the authority to appoint counsel when
it is necessary and in the overall interests of
justice;[5]


CONSIDERING further that The Chamber may exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to review the administrative decisions of the Principal Defender
where
such decisions violate the rights of the
Accused;[6]


NOTING that the Motion does not request the appointment of counsel nor
the review of a decision by the Principal Defender in circumstances
involving an
alleged violation of the rights of the Accused;


CONSIDERING that the Motion seeks relief that cannot be entertained by
The Chamber in the present circumstances;


PURSUANT to Rules 45, 73(A) and 54 of the Rules;


THE CHAMBER DISMISSES the motion as not properly before The
Chamber.

Done in Freetown, Sierra Leone, this 27th day of
June 2006.



Hon. Justice Benjamin Mutanga Itoe

Hon. Justice Bankole Thompson
Presiding Judge,
Trial
Chamber I

Hon. Justice Pierre Boutet


[Seal of the Special Court for Sierra Leone]



[1] Black’s
Law Dictionary
, 7th ed., “right of
audience”, p.
1325.
[2] Code of
Professional Conduct for Counsel with Right of Audience before the Special Court
for Sierra Leone, the 14th of May 2005, amended the
13th of May 2006, Art.14. See also Prosecutor v.
Hinga Norman, Fofana and Kondewa
, Case No. SCSL-04-14-T,
“Consequential Order on the Role of Court Appointed Counsel,” the
1st of October 2004 [“Consequential
Order”].
[3]
Motion, Appendix
B.
[4] The
Prosecutor v. Vojislav Seselj,
Case No. IT-03-67-PT, “Decision on
Appeal Against the Decision of the Registry of 20 January 2006”, the
7th of April 2006, para. 4. See also Prosecutor v.
Slobodan Milosevic
, Case No. IT-02-54-T, “Reasons for Decision on
Assignment of Defence Counsel”, the 22nd of
September 2004, para. 5; Prosecutor v. Vojislav Seselj, Case No.
IT-03-67-PT, “Decision on Request for Order to the Registry”, the
14th of March 2005; Transcript of the
17th of August 1998, Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic,
Mirjan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic
, Case No. IT-95-16-T, p.
10435.
[5]
Prosecutor v. Hinga Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-04-14-T,
“Written Reasons for the Decision on Application by Counsel for the Third
Accused to Withdraw from
the Case,” the 19th of
June 2006; “Consequential Order,” supra note 2. The Chamber
also has jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules, to replace and withdraw
assigned counsel under exceptional
circumstances.
[6]
Prosecutor v. Brima, Case No. SCSL-04-16-PT, “Decision on
Applicant’s Motion Against Denial by the Acting Principal Defender to
Enter a Legal
Service Contract for the Assignment of Counsel”, the
6th of May 2004, para. 39.