Injustice to Client?

Just a week ago, I represented a client at the KL sessions (criminal) courts. After a night of preparing cross-examination questions, I was appalled to discover that the client (assigned to me care of Legal Aid Centre) wanted to plead guilty. "Fear of punitive sentencing," he mentioned in Indonesian. And so -- PG it was, in compliance with the client's instructions.

The injustice referred to above was in the process of PG. The charges were read out to him. He was asked by the interpreter if he admitted to the crime. Yes, he said, I admit. He was then informed of the penalties. Then he was asked again -- do you admit? Yes, he said, I admit.

It was at that point that the injustice occurred. The PO (Prosecuting Officer) tendered "Facts" and exhibits. "Facts", which were a one-sided story. Facts, which stated that my client had the drugs in hand when he was caught. Facts, which contradicted my client's statement (as per the interview I conducted at Sungai Buloh prison) that the drugs were in a bag, about ten metres away when he was caught.

My client nodded his head when he was asked if he agreed to the facts and the exhibits. My immediate question: Was my client agreeing because he had told me an untrue version, or was he agreeing because he was pleading guilty? (And thought that agreeing to the facts was part of pleading guilty?)

Methinks an appeal may lie from this case. But the Legal Aid Centre should engage another lawyer to represent this client on appeal.