Pubdate: Thu, 03 May 2007
Source: Kingston Whig-Standard (CN ON)
Copyright: 2007 The Kingston Whig-Standard
Contact:  http://www.kingstonwhigstandard.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/224
Author: Frank Armstrong
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

CRIME SHOULDN'T PAY, MP SAYS

Liberal Justice Critic Takes Controversial Law To Committee

The federal Liberal justice critic wants the House of Commons Justice 
Committee to scrutinize a controversial law that allows convicted 
drug dealers to pay their lawyers from money police have seized from 
the criminals.

Eventually, Parliament could decide to change the law, said Marlene 
Jennings, the MP who is making the motion to the committee.

"I am recommending that the committee devote a minimum of two 
sittings to study the issue," said Jennings, the MP for 
Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine in Quebec.

It's possible the motion could go before the committee as soon as 
Tuesday, she said.

NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said yesterday he also brought up the 
issue with executive Justice Committee members during a brief meeting 
Tuesday and they will probably talk about it again next week.

Jennings and Comartin said last month that they would look into the 
practice that allows defence lawyers to use money seized from 
convicted drug dealers. They learned of the law when the 
Whig-Standard revealed the practice.

The Whig discovered that between 2001 and 2006, Kingston Police were 
ordered to hand over to defence lawyers about $163,000 of the 
approximately $285,000 they had seized in drug investigations.

In many of those cases, the money was released after the accused 
person pleaded guilty and by the consent of the Crown prosecutor, 
under a provision of the Criminal Code.

Normally, a defendant can apply for access to his seized money 
through Section 462.34 of the Criminal Code, to pay for living or 
business expenses or for legal fees.

If the Crown doesn't object, the matter can be approved by the trial 
judge after the guilty plea.

No formal directive has been given to federal Crown prosecutors to 
guide them on the issue.

The process upsets some law enforcement officials because it is 
generally done after the person has been convicted and doesn't face 
the same scrutiny as a separate, formal hearing.

Also, the money is often earned through the selling of drugs and 
comes from addicts who steal to feed their addictions.

Local and national police officials have said that letting convicted 
drug dealers use money seized by police creates a two-tier justice 
system whereby drug dealers with no legal assets can pay top dollar 
for a top-notch defence. Meanwhile, other people must resort to legal 
aid or liquidating the assets they've earned legally to pay for their defence.

Over the last six years, defence lawyers have successfully retrieved 
money from 74 of 227 seizures made by Kingston Police and have 
received anywhere from $48 to $13,000. The average allotment was about $2,100.

A federal organization called the Seized Property Management 
Directorate says in 2005-06 it returned $456,479 to defendants' 
lawyers out of the $75 million in cash and assets it received that year.

However, the directorate doesn't track money given to lawyers by the 
seizing policing agency. Therefore, data at municipal police forces 
in Kingston and elsewhere are not included in the national numbers. 
The directorate's data also does not break down information about 
guilty pleas or the crimes for which charges are laid. Nor does 
Statistics Canada track this type of data.

Jennings said the Liberal members of the justice committee agree with 
her motion and will bring it to the committee for consideration.

The motion recognizes that the practice of using seized money for 
legal fees isn't regulated by clear criteria and that there has been 
minimal public scrutiny of it. It suggests that the committee study 
section 462.34 of the Criminal Code and its implications and that the 
committee report its findings to the House of Commons.

If the committee adopts the motion and decides to study and discuss 
the legislation over two sessions, a report will be written that 
could include suggestions for legislative changes, Jennings said.

"At any point after it has been tabled in the House [of Commons], I 
could give a notice of motion of concurrence and, once that notice 
has expired, I could move it at any point and there would be debate 
for three hours in the House on the report," she said.

The House would then vote whether or not to adopt the report and its 
recommendations.

"Then, hopefully, the government would move on it," she said.

In March, Comartin expressed concern that national data on seized 
money used for legal feels isn't tracked and said he would talk to 
the attorney general about collecting that data.

He said he talked briefly Tuesday to members of the executive of the 
House's justice committee about the legislation. Their meeting was 
interrupted so they will discuss the issue again early next week, he said.

Two members of the other parties on the executive didn't seem to know 
much about the legislation and felt they needed to learn more, he said.

At the same time, the committee's schedule is "swamped" with private 
member's bills, so it may not examine the issue until the fall, he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom