The Supreme Court has upheld a decision by the Legal Aid Committee not to hire a King’s Counsel to defend a man accused of murder.

While Devon Hewey had requested to be represented in court by a British-based KC, the committee determined that the matter would be suitable for experienced local counsel.

Mr Hewey initiated a judicial review of the decision, arguing that the LAC had acted “arbitrarily” and outside of its powers, further arguing that the body failed to provide sufficient reasons for refusing to fund overseas counsel.

He called on the Supreme Court to find that the LAC had acted unlawfully, irrationally or unreasonably and order the body to appoint him his requested overseas counsel.

Acting Puisne Judge Alexandra Wheatley, however, upheld the decision of the LAC in a decision published this week.

“Any applicant seeking legal aid assistance must always have at the forefront of his or her mind that the granting of a legal aid certificate does not amount to funding of whomever he or she wishes to represent him or her before the court,” she wrote.

“A legal aid certificate is not a blank cheque to be handed out to whomever an assisted person desires.

“There must be checks and balance in place to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.”

Acting Justice Wheatley said that it was “unmistakable” that the LAC intended to ensure that Mr Hewey was provided appropriate representation.

“Moreover, it is evident that the applicant has a fundamental misunderstanding of his constitutional right to be represented before the courts on his criminal charges,” she added.

“It is crucial to differentiate one’s right to be represented before the criminal courts in accordance with the Constitution.

“Albeit every person has a right to representation by his or her ‘counsel of choice’ before the courts where such counsel is privately funded, the right of having his or her ‘counsel of choice’ is not extended to those who are publicly funded.”

Mr Hewey has denied a charge that he murdered 22-year-old Randy Robinson on March 31, 2011.

The court heard that in 2022 Simone Smith-Bean, who had previously represented Mr Hewey in the matter, applied for an overseas KC to be brought on to the case.

The LAC rejected the application, finding that there were not sufficient grounds to hire overseas counsel for the case, but added Susan Mulligan, a Bermuda-based lawyer, to Mr Hewey’s legal aid certificate.

Mrs Smith-Bean urged the LAC to reconsider overseas counsel in January 2023, but the LAC responded that there were seasoned counsel in Bermuda capable of handling the case.

In February 2023, Mr Hewey asked for his legal aid certificate to be transferred from Mrs Smith-Bean to Shi-Vaughn Lee.

While the LAC accepted there was good enough reason for a change in counsel, it said that it would consider amending the certificate to appoint Ms Lee on the condition that the applicant also either accepted Ms Mulligan as lead counsel at his trial or chose a different local senior counsel approved by the LAC.

In March 2023, the LAC said to Mr Hewey: “The committee has carefully considered all of Mr Hewey 's requests and affirms, once again, its decision not to appoint King's Counsel from overseas to represent Mr Hewey.

“The committee also declined to provide public funds to retain inexperienced junior counsel to represent Mr Hewey without being guided by an experienced lead counsel.”

Bruce Swan, who represented Mr Hewey during the judicial review, argued that the LAC’s decision was irrational and wholly unreasonable.

The LAC, however, noted that legislation clearly states that it is up to the LAC which counsel it assigns to cases.

In a decision released on Tuesday, Acting Justice Wheatley said she did not accept that the LAC had acted arbitrarily, irrationally, unreasonably or outside its remit.

She also rejected the suggestion that the Act seeks to “give effect as far as possible” to an assisted person’s counsel of choice.

“The purpose of the Act is to provide adequate and appropriate legal representation before the courts to those persons who qualify,” she wrote.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case.