Special Court for Sierra Leone, Taylor Trial, The Opening of the Trial: Early Developments and Delays

Taylor Trial

Special Court for Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

English

The agreed timeline for Charles Taylor’s trial has been pushed back once again due to issues relating to Taylor’s legal representation. Trial Chamber II of the Special Court has had to balance pressures to move the trial forward with concerns relating to fair trial rights. These two sets of concerns are not necessarily in tension, as the right to be tried without undue delay is guaranteed by the Statute of the Special Court, but the issues relating to Taylor’s representation were considered substantial enough to delay the trial. Factors affecting the trial timeline included defence preparation and scheduling conflicts, such as the AFRC sentencing judgment in Freetown in mid-July and the SCSL and ICC recesses.

The Chamber will not begin hearing evidence in the trial of Charles Taylor until late August. Notably, this is only shortly before the date that the defence had requested for the start of trial, and it appears no substantial gains have been made by the Chamber in refusing to grant this original request. The Trial Chamber’s efforts to hold to the agreed timeline appear to have been disrupted by a combination of factors, including Taylor’s own timing in firing his defence counsel, Defence Office delays in assigning new counsel, logistical issues arising from the dual locations of the Court in Freetown and the Hague, and time constraints tied to other commitments of the Trial Chamber with the AFRC case and scheduled recesses. In the proceedings of 25 June, however, Presiding Judge Sebutinde placed blame for trial delays largely with the Registry, claiming that it had focused more on budgetary constraints than on providing the accused with adequate representation in accordance with Article 17 of the Court Statute.

Taylor had been represented by an assigned counsel up until the day of the prosecution’s opening statement on June 4, 2007. As of that day, Taylor terminated his representation and stated that he would represent himself at trial. The accused refused to appear in trial until today, however, and the combination of this refusal and the lack of a new assigned defence team created an impasse where the trial could not go forward without raising concerns about fair trial rights. The Principal Defender indicated that Taylor has since been persuaded to accept legal representation rather than to represent himself in court. The option of compelling Taylor’s original counsel to appear on his behalf has not been explored by the Trial Chamber, although a decision by the Appellate Chamber suggests that they have the authority to do so.