Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Vanuatu Law Council - Disciplinary Committee

  Download original PDF

Bal, Re [2019] VULCDC 2 (8 May 2019)

Disciplinary Committee Hearing 29 April 2019

Present: Mr G.A. Andrée Wiltens, Chair

Ms S. Shah, Member

Mr D. Russet, Member

Ms V.M. Trief, Secretary

Mr A.E. Bal

Decision: 8 May 2019

Complaint by the Law Council against Mr A.E. Bal

1. Introduction
   

1. In 2018, Mr Bal acted for a client criminally charged with reckless driving causing death, with an alternative lesser charge of unintentional harm causing death. Mr Bal advised his client to plead guilty to the alternative charge, which she duly did, and she was subsequently sentenced.
   
2. The case subsequently came before the Court of Appeal as an appeal against conviction and sentence. However, given the serious challenges to the prosecution case that were not pursued at first instance, the Court of Appeal granted an application to set aside the conviction and remitted the file to the Supreme Court for retrial. In doing so, the Court made several disparaging comments regarding Mr Bal’s conduct – they are the basis for the complaint.
   
3. A different counsel acted for the client at the retrial, and she was ultimately found not guilty.
   
   2. Background
      
4. The thrust of the prosecution case was that the client had been drinking alcohol and was drunk at the relevant time. It was alleged that in that state she had resumed driving a bus in the early hours of the morning. It was alleged that she had proceeded around a round-a-about on the wrong side of the road, in the course of which her bus had struck and killed a pedestrian. It was further alleged the client had then driven away from the scene.
   
5. Mr Bal’s instructions included statements to the effect that his client was not drunk at the material time; and that she had not driven on the wrong side of the road. Mr Bal advised that he had told the prosecutor of these disputed facts, but he did not tell the Court. Mr Bal assumed the prosecutor would arrange for the necessary witnesses to be called at a “Newton hearing” (also known as a disputed facts hearing), but when that did not eventuate Mr Bal did nothing about that and allowed his client to be sentenced on a factually incorrect and unaccepted basis.
   
   100. Complaint
        

6. ---

   PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
   URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VULCDC/2019/2.html