CRIME SHOULDN'T PAY, MP SAYS

Liberal Justice Critic Takes Controversial Law To Committee

The federal Liberal justice critic wants the House of Commons Justice
Committee to scrutinize a controversial law that allows convicted
drug dealers to pay their lawyers from money police have seized from
the criminals.

Eventually, Parliament could decide to change the law, said Marlene
Jennings, the MP who is making the motion to the committee.

"I am recommending that the committee devote a minimum of two
sittings to study the issue," said Jennings, the MP for
Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine in Quebec.

It's possible the motion could go before the committee as soon as
Tuesday, she said.

NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said yesterday he also brought up the
issue with executive Justice Committee members during a brief meeting
Tuesday and they will probably talk about it again next week.

Jennings and Comartin said last month that they would look into the
practice that allows defence lawyers to use money seized from
convicted drug dealers. They learned of the law when the
Whig-Standard revealed the practice.

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

In many of those cases, the money was released after the accused
person pleaded guilty and by the consent of the Crown prosecutor,
under a provision of the Criminal Code.

Normally, a defendant can apply for access to his seized money
through Section 462.34 of the Criminal Code, to pay for living or
business expenses or for legal fees.

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 doesn't 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 money seized by police creates a two-tier justice
system whereby drug dealers with no legal assets can pay top dollar
for a top-notch defence. Meanwhile, other people must resort to legal
aid or liquidating the assets they've earned legally 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 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 doesn't 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's data also does not break down information about
guilty pleas or the crimes for which charges are laid. Nor does
Statistics Canada track this type of data.

Jennings said the Liberal members of the justice committee agree with
her motion and will bring it to the committee for consideration.

The 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. It suggests that the committee study
section 462.34 of the Criminal Code and its implications and that the
committee report its findings to the House of Commons.

If the committee adopts the motion and decides to study and discuss
the legislation over two sessions, a report will be written that
could include suggestions for legislative changes, Jennings said.

"At any point after it has been tabled in the House [of Commons], I
could give a notice of motion of concurrence and, once that notice
has expired, I could move it at any point and there would be debate
for three hours in the House on the report," she said.

The House would then vote whether or not to adopt the report and its
recommendations.

"Then, hopefully, the government would move on it," she said.

In March, Comartin expressed concern that national data on seized
money used for legal feels isn't tracked and said he would talk to
the attorney general about collecting that data.

He said he talked briefly Tuesday to members of the executive of the
House's justice committee about the legislation. Their meeting was
interrupted so they will discuss the issue again early next week, he said.

Two members of the other parties on the executive didn't seem to know
much about the legislation and felt they needed to learn more, he said.

At the same time, the committee's schedule is "swamped" with private
member's bills, so it may not examine the issue until the fall, he said.