lay individuals, as the Applicants are, do not often have. In this regard, the Court notes that, in the course of the domestic proceedings, the trial Magistrate Court and the High Court made divergent findings both in law and fact. Whereas the trial magistrate acquitted the Applicants, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the Applicants. Furthermore, although the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision and sentence of the High Court, it differed in its reasoning. All these confirm the complexity of the case. 111. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the interest of justice made the provision of free legal representation particularly indispensable in the appellate proceedings of the Court of Appeal. 112. The Court thus concludes that the failure of the Respondent to provide the Applicants with free legal aid in the Court of Appeal was a violation of their right to defense under article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter. 6) Allegation concerning the delay in the delivery of copies of the judgment i) Applicants' Submission 113. The Applicants submit that their right to a fair trial was violated by the Respondent's failure to provide them with copies of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2006 until about two years later. They contend that the delay led to their inability to file a petition for a review of the Appeal Court's judgment, and the subsequent dismissal of their Application for extension of time to file a petition for review. ii) Respondent's Submissions 114. The Respondent admits that the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2006 was delivered on 24 December 2009 and that the Applicants received the decision of the Court of Appeal only on 2 November 2011. The Respondent also concedes that the time in which the Applicants could have lodged a request for review of the judgment had already expired when the Applicants received the copies of the said judgment. 30