Key legal question
Whether the appeal against the refusal to replace court-appointed counsel was admissible.
Extracted holding
The appeal was inadmissible because the appellant failed to show an irreparable legal disadvantage and did not provide sufficient reasoning.
Extracted reasoning
A denial of substitute public counsel is generally not an irreparable harm under Art. 93(1)(a) LTF, and no exception was demonstrated. The filing also lacked sufficient motivation under Art. 42 LTF and did not address the cantonal court's reasons.