R v Rostom

The case of R v Rostom involved the defendant, an appellant, who was convicted by a jury verdict following a trial in the District Court. The appellant was unrepresented during the trial and unable to read English. Although an interpreter was provided during the trial, the witness statements, the prosecutor's brief, and the draft opening were not translated into Arabic, the appellant's first language. This limitation hindered the appellant's ability to point out inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the witnesses. The court was informed that it could not help with the cost of translating the statements, raising the issue of whether the appellant was denied a fair trial.

The legal issues in this case centered on whether the appellant's inability to read English and access translated documents resulted in a miscarriage of justice, thereby requiring the setting aside of his convictions. The principles governing the conduct of a trial for an unrepresented accused, and the obligations of a judge in such cases, were well established and recently reviewed by Debelle J in Pezos v Police. The core issue was whether the appellant's lack of access to translated prosecution declaration statements led to material unfairness.

The court held that the appellant was denied a fair trial due to the absence of translated documents, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The judge's primary obligation in such cases is to ensure the trial's fairness, which includes providing necessary assistance to an unrepresented accused while maintaining neutrality. The appellant's age, inability to read or write English, and the complexity of the trial due to language barriers and the use of interpreters created significant challenges. The court concluded that the appellant's lack of access to translated materials had indeed resulted in relevant unfairness, and therefore, the appeal was allowed. The convictions were set aside, and a retrial was ordered.