Pubdate: Wed, 30 May 2007
Source: Eagle Valley News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2007 Sicamous Eagle Valley News
Contact:  http://www.eaglevalleynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4362
Author: Cheryl Wierda
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)

MARTIN'S LEGAL FEES IN QUESTION

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 last week 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 of Malakwa, B.C., 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 
funds to try to defend myself or do it myself, because legal aid has 
denied me.'"

As well, Jevning 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 ability 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 Beames 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 his family," said Jevning.

Beames is expected to sentence Martin next week.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman