Skip to main content

The Pitfalls of Self-Representation: Lessons from R. v. Hessabi

In R. v. Hessabi, 2024 BCSC 1572, the British Columbia Supreme Court reaffirmed a long-standing reality of the legal system: self-representation rarely benefits the accused. This case, which involved an appeal of a guilty plea for an unsafe lane change, highlights several systemic issues, including the inherent disadvantages faced by self-represented litigants, the reluctance of courts to accept necessity as a defence, and the finality of guilty pleas—even when concerns are raised after the fact.

The Challenges of Self-Representation

Legal proceedings are structured around precise argumentation and adherence to established case law, and self-represented individuals often lack the technical skills necessary to navigate the complexities of the justice system. In Hessabi, the appellant attempted to argue that the trial court failed to properly consider his defence of necessity. However, as is common in self-represented cases, the appeal was summarily dismissed. Without legal training, Hessabi struggled to frame his arguments in a way that met the legal standards required for appellate review. His claim that the constable persuaded him to plead guilty was also given little weight, reinforcing how courts generally accept guilty pleas as conclusive unless clear evidence of coercion or misunderstanding is provided.

Necessity as a Rarely Accepted Defence

The Hessabi case also illustrates the court’s skepticism toward necessity as a defence. Necessity, in legal terms, requires that the accused had no reasonable alternative but to commit the offence in order to avoid imminent and virtually inevitable harm. Courts impose a high bar for necessity, often dismissing it outright if they believe alternative actions were available. In Hessabi, the judge entertained the possibility that necessity could apply but ultimately found that the appellant’s lane change was prompted more by nervousness than by an unavoidable emergency. This is a common judicial approach—while necessity exists as a theoretical defence, in practice, it is rarely upheld.

How Weak Legal Arguments Become Settled Law

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Hessabi is how weakly argued cases can shape legal precedent. In an adversarial system, higher courts rely on well-argued cases to set precedents. A poorly presented self-represented appeal does little to challenge the status quo and can inadvertently strengthen legal interpretations that might otherwise have been reconsidered. Because Hessabi was unable to articulate a compelling legal challenge, the BC Supreme Court’s decision now stands as another example of a failed necessity defence—potentially discouraging future litigants from even attempting the argument.

The Importance of Succeeding at the First Hearing

One of the key takeaways from Hessabi is the critical importance of succeeding at the first hearing. Findings of fact are made at this stage, and appeals are generally limited to reviewing legal errors rather than re-evaluating evidence. If a case is not properly argued from the outset, it becomes much more difficult to challenge later. Courts are reluctant to overturn guilty pleas, even when a defendant later claims misunderstanding or external pressure. This reinforces the necessity of obtaining legal counsel early to ensure the best possible outcome.

If you’re facing a traffic charge or need to appeal a traffic court decision, you need an experienced lawyer who understands the system and knows how to build a strong case from the start. Don’t take chances with your future—get the defence you deserve. Call BC Driving Lawyers at 604-608-1200 now.

Read the full decision here: R. v. Hessabi.