MPS WILL PROBE LAW THAT ALLOWS CRIMINALS TO USE SEIZED MONEY

The House of Commons Justice Committee will scrutinize a controversial
law that allows convicted drug dealers to pay their lawyers with money
seized from them by police.

Federal Liberal justice critic Marlene Jennings introduced her motion
to the committee last week to examine the little-publicized provision
of the Criminal Code after reading a Whig-Standard story about it.

"The committee adopted it unanimously," said Jennings, who is Liberal
MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine in Quebec.

The Justice Committee will spend two days studying the provision of
Section 462.34 that allows convicted criminals access to their seized
money to pay for living or business expenses or for legal fees without
having to hold a formal hearing.

Jennings said the parliamentary committee probably won't get a chance
to look at the law until the fall, as it has too many other matters to
examine before the House of Commons rises for the summer. The Liberal
MP's 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. The motion asks the Justice Committee
to study section 462.34 and its implications and report its findings
to the House of Commons.

Jennings and NDP justice critic Joe Comartin both said last month that
they would look into the practice, which allows defence lawyers to use
money seized from convicted drug dealers. Both learned of the
provision from the Whig.

Comartin expressed concern that national data on seized money used for
legal fees is not tracked and said he would talk to the attorney
general about collecting that information.

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

Often, the money was released after the accused person pleaded guilty
and by the consent of the Crown prosecutor (under Section 462.34).

Normally, a defendant can get access to his seized money after winning
a formal hearing in a court separate from the one hearing his criminal
case.

However, in practice, 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 does not 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 the seized money creates a two-tier justice system
whereby drug dealers with no legal assets are able to pay for a
stellar defence. Meanwhile, other people must resort to legal aid or
liquidating the assets they've earned through legal means 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 that 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 does not 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 also does not break down information about guilty
pleas or the crimes for which charges are laid. Statistics Canada also
does not track this type of data.

After the committee studies Section 462.34, it may suggest changes to
the law to close what some law-enforcement officials see as a legal
loophole.

If those suggestions are tabled in the House of Commons, they would be
debated and the House would vote whether to adopt the committee's
report and its recommendations.