In appeals alleging miscarriage of justice due to incompetence of counsel, the court requires an objective assessment of counsel's conduct, not an investigation of the subjective beliefs of the participants. Evidence as to a client's instructions and proposals about the conduct of the matter is generally inadmissible because it invites the court to assess the soundness of forensic judgments. The concept of 'flagrant incompetence' is best understood as conduct incapable of rational explanation on forensic grounds.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.