Harun J:

In this case, the accused is alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust of an assortment of household appliances worth more than $20,000 from the Police Co-operative in 1976. The complaint was made in May 1977 and the accused was charged in Court in July 1978. He claimed trial and hearing was fixed for 23 January 1979. When the case came up for trial on that day the accused pleaded guilty to the charge but the prosecuting officer said he did not have the facts of case with him and so the hearing was adjourned to 2 February 1979 for facts and sentence.

When the case came up again, the accused had the assistance of Counsel but the prosecuting officer said he needed a longer date as there were many documents and receipts to be traced. In short, the investigation had not been completed.

Further hearing was fixed for 7 April 1979 but on that day Counsel was not present when the case was called. The accused still maintained his plea of guilty. The hearing was adjourned to 9 April 1979 when the accused retracted his plea of guilty, whereupon the hearing was adjourned to 4 October 1979 in the presence of Counsel. On 22 September 1979 Counsel wrote to the Court stating that he would not be able to attend Court on 4 October 1979 as he will be engaged in the Industrial Court. He gave his free dates. The Court, in order to accommodate Counsel, postponed the case to 4 February 1980, being one of counsel's free dates. On 2 February 1980 Counsel wrote in again stating that he would not be free on 4 February 1980 as he will be engaged in the

Kelang Magistrate's Court on that day. He asked for another date, this time his earliest available date being September 1980. The Court obliged and set hearing for 9 & 10 September 1980.

I called for the records of this case, as it appeared to me that it was an unduly long postponement when that particular Court had hearing dates available in February and March this year. In fact that Court was specially established this year to dispose of this type of cases expeditiously.

In any criminal trial, there are three parties, the court, the prosecution and the defence. If dates of hearing are to be fixed at the convenience of all three parties, then trial dates will be fixed at some considerable time hence. There is of course no guarantee, as happened in this case, that the trial will go on as scheduled on the date fixed, if everyone's convenience is taken into account. The general rule, therefore, has always been that trial dates are fixed at the convenience of the court,on a first-come-first-served basis. This is fair to all concerned. Public funds are not wasted on idle courts when there is so much work to do.

This case clearly shows that the Court had gone out of its way to accommodate the convenience of Counsel and yet on at least two occasions Counsel disappointed the Court and inconvenienced everybody else by being engaged elsewhere. It will not be out of place here to remind all concerned of the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules, 1978 made under s. 77 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 which provides:

Rule 2:

No advocate and solicitor is obliged to act as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client but the advocate and solicitor may accept any brief in the Courts in which he professes to practise at a proper professional fee dependent on the length and difficulty of the case:

Provided that special circumstances may justify his refusal, at his discretion, to accept a particular brief.

Rule 6(a):

An advocate and solicitor shall not accept any brief unless he is reasonably certain of being able to appear and represent the client on the required day."

Rule 24:

(a) An advocate and solicitor shall make every effort to be ready for trial on the day fixed.

(b) An advocate and solicitor may apply for postponement of a case fixed for hearing for good and cogent reasons only.

Section 77(3) of the Legal Profession Act reads:

Any advocat