In message , Jethro
writes
>"mogga" wrote in message
>news:vbv224hjfnvs7jqioa5ei6oocobelbtfl8@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:49:09 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew McGee wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am appalled that we have reached a point where a defendant in a POCA
>>>> confiscation hearing (who has to have Legal Aid because he is not
>>>>allowed to
>>>> use his own funds to pay for lawyers) is left unrepresented because the
>>>> money on offer is so poor.
>>>
>>>Who would *want* to be represented - if not being able to find someone
>>>to do so gives you an automatic "win"?
>>
>>
>> And why can't his "assets" be used? If he has assets that can be
>> taken, surely some can be used to defend him?
>
>Because it's quite possible to envisage a scenario in which a person
>with 2million in assets manages to spend 2million on their defence,
>leaving the crown with .... nothing (except an IOU from the defendant
>for 2million).
>
>
And the problem with this is?
If the object of the exercise is to deny the criminal his property, job
done. Any costs are generally, and could in this situation, be subject
to assessment by the Court as to whether the costs were reasonable in
terms of the rates charged and in terms of the work done. If the Court
finds the costs were reasonable, and reasonably incurred, what business
is it of the State to say different? It leads to problems such as
defendants not being able to find a lawyer willing to do the job at the
fees available...
--
Richard Miller |