Changing defence lawyers shortly before the main trial: preparation, adjournment and the limit of tactical changes

Section 221(2) requires the presiding judge to set the hearing so that the accused and the defence lawyer generally have at least eight days to prepare the defence. In the case stated in subsection 4, the period is 14 days. The period runs from service of the summons under the statutory rules.

The second sentence of section 221(2) is central to a change of lawyer: changing the person of the defence lawyer does not extend the preparation period available to the lawyer. The court therefore does not have to open a new period of eight or 14 days solely because the lawyer has changed.

This does not answer whether the particular hearing can proceed. The statutory minimum and the work actually required are separate questions. A large file, extensive evidence or an imminent hearing may still justify explaining that preparation is incomplete.

The new lawyer should first receive the summons, indictment or application for punishment and the previous correspondence. Authority, access to the file and the current stage of the evidence must then be clarified. Without this information, the preparation time cannot be assessed reliably.

A general statement that the new lawyer needs more time will usually not be enough. The request should explain which concrete steps remain open and why they matter for the defence. This may include reviewing a large file, preparing an interview, assessing applications for evidence or discussing incriminating statements.

The request should reach the court as early as possible. Section 226(2) requires reasons and, where available, supporting documents. Depending on the circumstances, these may include proof of the recent appointment, information on access to the file or documents relating to the impediment.

Section 226(1) lists the grounds on which the main trial may be adjourned on application or by the court. These include an unavoidable or very substantial impediment to the timely attendance of a participant, an impediment affecting the court, essential evidence that cannot be taken immediately, or other reasons why the trial cannot be concluded.

Section 226(3) contains a specific restriction for the defence lawyer. An adjournment on that ground is available only if the impediment became known so late to the accused or the court that another defence lawyer could no longer be appointed. The court therefore also considers whether a workable replacement was available.

The assessment is different where the change had been planned for some time. Someone who replaces the lawyer without sufficient notice and then relies on the lack of preparation cannot rely on the change alone. The full circumstances remain decisive.

During a main trial that has already begun, the new lawyer must quickly understand the procedural position. This includes the evidence already taken, applications made, recorded statements and the evidence still outstanding. An adjournment may be needed if effective defence is impossible without that review.

The request should distinguish the personal wish for a different lawyer from a procedural lack of preparation. The court is not deciding whether the accused is satisfied with the former lawyer. It is deciding whether the trial can properly continue in the circumstances.

Section 226(4) provides that there is no separate remedy against an adjournment decision which would suspend the further hearing. Depending on the stage of the proceedings, the issue may still matter for later remedies. That question should be examined immediately with the defence lawyer.

A useful request connects the legal provision with the facts of the case. It states the hearing date, when the appointment was made, the preparation completed and why the defence cannot be finished by the hearing. It should also show what additional time is needed for which work.

Where there is an impediment, explain its nature and duration and when it became known. Where the issue is insufficient preparation after a change, focus on the necessary review and the essential defence steps. General dissatisfaction or a broad reference to professional care is not enough on its own.

Section 226(4) provides no separate remedy which suspends the further hearing. The defence should therefore submit a complete request before the hearing. Correcting an inadequate preparation later is often more difficult than presenting the concrete situation in time.

The law does not treat a change of defence lawyer as an automatic bar to the main trial. The limit is reached where a change without a sound reason is used solely to delay the hearing. The timing, the opportunities already available for preparation and whether replacement representation could have been organised in time are relevant.

This does not bind an accused person to an unsuitable or unavailable lawyer. A change may be necessary for professional, personal or organisational reasons. It should, however, be organised in a way that respects both procedural rights and the orderly progress of the case.

The legal assessment should therefore separate two questions: Is the change itself sensible or necessary? And is the remaining time sufficient for the new defence? Only the combination of both answers shows whether a reasoned request for an adjournment has prospects.