Pubdate: Fri, 25 May 2007
Source: Kelowna Capital News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2007, West Partners Publishing Ltd.
Contact:  http://www.kelownacapnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1294
Author: Cheryl Wierda
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Marijuana - Canada)

MAN WHO PAID FOR LAWYER WITH DRUG MONEY FACES SENTENCING

Should proceeds of crime used to pay for a defence lawyer be repaid,
or would such a fine be inappropriate because one has the
constitutional right to mount a defence in court?

That was one of the questions before Justice Alison Beames as she
heard sentencing submissions in a Kelowna courtroom yesterday in
relation to the case of a man convicted of smuggling marijuana into
the United States and laundering money in Vernon, Kelowna and Salmon
Arm.

Colin Hugh Martin was also convicted by a jury with possession of
proceeds of crime in connection with a number of seizures, including
$217,870 US in cash on Dec. 15, 1998, $315,130 in February, 1999, and
a Dodge Viper.

Crown is alleging that Martin was the kingpin in a marijuana smuggling
ring that was busted by police, resulting in prosecutions against a
number of people, including his father and brother.

They've asked for a global sentence in the range of five to seven
years.

However, defence lawyer Douglas Jevning argued that Martin's
involvement in the organization was similar to that of his family
members, and said Martin undertook the trial last year for the purpose
of being treated similarly by the courts.

His dad and brother received conditional sentences of two years less a
day.

However, more contentious was the issue of whether or not Martin
should pay a fine of up to $600,000 to repay the money used by
him--and his family members--from seized money for legal fees.

Jevning argued that the idea that Martin should pay a fine--and
potentially go to jail if he's unable to pay--for money used by his
father and brother is "just so far from what a right thinking person
would find to be acceptable," said Jevning.

"Paying someone's legal fees is not a luxury," Jevning further argued,
adding that Martin was unable to access legal aid because of the
seized funds.

"There's no choice," he said. "The choice that he has is 'use those
fund to try to defend myself or do it myself, because legal aid has
denied me.'"

As well, he argued that one is presumed innocent by the courts, and
the funds were presumed legitimate when they were accessed.

However, Crown counsel Michael Le Dressay questioned how using the
money for legal fees suddenly made the funds "clean of the stigma of
proceeds of crime.

"It is the proceeds of crime. There is no question about it," he
said.

"He (Jevning) is constitutionally challenging the section (of the
criminal code dealing with the issue)," Le Dressay told Beames. "He is
asking you to re-write it."

He also argued that the ab-ility to repay the funds is
"irrelevant."

"If it takes him the rest of his life to pay the fine, so be it," said
Le Dressay.

But Jevning argued the effects of that would be far-reaching and
negatively impact Martin's family, which includes three children.

"The impact on his family would be intolerable," he
said.

He also argued that Bea-mes should take into account the fact that
it took eight years for the case to wind its way through the courts.

"Mr. Martin's life for eight years has essentially been on hold in
terms of what to strive for for his family," said Jevning.

Beames is expected to sentence Martin next week. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake