Schedule, The Legal Practitioners Act, 2000 THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (C ODE OF C ONDUCT) R ULES , 2010

CONFESSION OF GUILT 1. In considering the duty of counsel retained to defend a person charged with offence who confesses to Counsel himself that he committed the offence charged, it is essential to bear the following points clearly in mind:– (1) that every punishable crime is a breach of the common or statute law committed by a person of sound mind and understanding; (2) that the issue in a criminal trial is always whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, never whether he is innocent; (3) that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. 2. Upon the clear appreciation of these points depends broadly the true conception of the duty of the advocate for the accused. 3. His duty is to protect his client as far as possible from being convicted except by a competent tribunal and upon legal evidence sufficient to support a conviction for the offence with which he is charged. 4. The ways in which this duty can be successfully performed with regard to the facts of a case are– (a) by showing that the accused was not responsible at the time of the commission of the offence charged by reason of insanity or want of criminal capacity; or (b) by satisfying the tribunal that the evidence for the prosecution is unworthy or lacks credence, or, even if believed, is insufficient to justify a conviction for the offence charged; or (c) by setting up in answer an affirmative case. 5. It follows that the mere fact that a person charged with a crime has in the circumstances mentioned above made such a confession to his counsel, is no bar to that advocate appearing or continuing to appear in his defence, nor indeed does such a confession release counsel from his imperative duty to do all he honourably can do for his client. 6. But such a confession imposes very strict limitations on the conduct of the defence. 7. A legal practitioner must not assert that which he knows to be a lie. He must not connive at, much less attempt to substantiate, a fraud. 8. While, therefore, it would be right to take any objection to the competence of the Court, to the form of the indictment, to the admissibility of any evidence or to the sufficiency of the evidence admitted, it would be absolutely wrong to suggest that some other Disciplinary proceedings. 22 23 Act No. 15 of 2000.