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