Judgment No. CCZ 13/2015 12 Const. Application No. CCZ 56/13 whether the applicant received the best representation possible in the circumstances from his erstwhile legal practitioners. [30] I think this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the pro deo system in this country is not without difficulty. Usually it is the most inexperienced and junior lawyers who are allocated these cases. It is only the few accused persons who are able to raise money to enlist the services of senior legal practitioners who are able to get appropriate legal representation required at this level. Therefore the fact that the applicant did not go further to assert his rights, though not irrelevant, should not be taken as sufficient justification for this Court to take too serious a view of such failure. [31] In the above regard, it is important to bear in mind the remarks of KRIEGLER J in Sanderson v Attorney – General, Eastern Cape 1998 (2) SA 38 (CC), 53 E-G that: “… one should not resort to the Barker test without recognising that our society and our criminal justice system differ from those in North America. Nor should one for instance adopt the “assertion of right” requirement of Barker without making due allowance for the fact that the vast majority of South Africans accused are unrepresented and have no conception of a right to a speedy trial. To deny them relief under s 25 (3) (a) because they did not assert their right would be to strike a pen through the right as far as the most vulnerable members of our society are concerned. It would be equally unrealistic not to recognise that the administration of our whole criminal justice system, including the law enforcement and correctional agencies, are under severe stress at the moment.” [32] I am therefore of the view that although the applicant did not assert his rights in the sense in which the term is used, one must remain alive to the fact that he was represented by pro deo counsel, who eventually left the country for Botswana and no legal practitioner in the law firm considered it his responsibility to ensure that the matter was concluded. The failure by the applicant to assert his rights in these circumstances is not one that should weigh heavily against him.