You are a judge on a full bench in the High Court, presiding over the criminal trial appeal of Jack. In the original criminal trial, Jack was convicted of committing murder and assault to do grievous bodily harm.

You are a judge on a full bench in the High Court, presiding over the criminal trial appeal of Jack. In the original criminal trial, Jack was convicted of committing murder and assault to do grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to a cumulative 30 years’ imprisonment. It comes to your attention in the appeal that Jack is representing himself after he decided to dismiss his third attorney, citing that this attorney misled him about taking the stand to testify in his defence in the original criminal trial. It comes to your attention from Jack that his attorney never informed him of the consequences for not testifying and compelled him not to testify in his defence. This was because Jack’s third attorney said to Jack, “You do not know the law. Who is the attorney herel? I know what I am doing and should you testify, the legal position does not favour you for an acquittal. Count on me to get you an acquittal.” It comes to your attention from Jack’s testimony of what resulted in the charges that he faced that if Jack were actually fully appraised of the consequences of not testifying, and thus being allowed to testify, the verdict in the original criminal trial would have been different and Jack may not have been convicted of all charges. This would have resulted in Jack getting a lesser sentence had he been “competently represented” by the third attorney that he had employed. In a note not exceeding 1% (one—and—a—half) pages, discuss what is meant by the “standard of competent lawyering” required of legal representatives for accused in criminal trials in the context of an accused’s right to a fair trial in terms of section 35 of the Constitution, 1996, with reference to the case ofS v Tondwo and Others 2008 (1) SACR 613 (SCA).