Tuesday
From The Times:
Jansen Versfeld, the solicitor who conducted the fruitless search for a barrister, said: “Because of the very low rate of pay for these hearings, £175.25 per day, and the amount of work and complexity involved, with no payment for preparation, none could undertake to do it.”Mr Versfeld, who is with Morgan Rose solicitors, said that there were 6,586 pages of documents and a total of 4,548 transactions that would require arranging into a manageable form by experienced senior counsel for an estimated six-week hearing.
[...]
"So although this defendant was convicted of offences only involving a few hundred pounds’ worth of cannabis, he found himself at risk of losing £4.5 million worth of assets – with the burden on him to prove that they were not ill-gotten gains. On top of that, he was prohibited from using those assets for his own defence.”
I predict that the law will be changed. It is plainly intolerable to the state that people's property should not be seized merely because the unfair procedure is inadequately funded.
Yes, the law will be changed. Already before Parliament. The confiscation of assets will take place upon arrest for suspected drugs offences.
Yes, really, before even the criminal trial.
http://timworstall.com/2008/05/06/oh-my-giddy-aunt/
Posted by Tim Worstall at May 6, 2008 02:51 PM
One of the most important jobs in the Crown Court, after the Listing Officer, used to be the Taxation Master.
He went through a barristers claims for preparation with the proverbial fine tooth comb, and did a marvelous job of keeping the costs down.
My office was next to his, and heard many a barrister waxing far more eloquent in defence of their fees than they ever had in defence of their client.
Posted by RAB at May 6, 2008 04:10 PM
This makes the case for allowing juries made up of taxpayers to declare a law null and void.Quite clearly our "representatives " do not have our welfare or rights at heart.
Posted by renminbi at May 6, 2008 04:14 PM
Renminbi,
Many lawyers do have your interests at heart and I speak as lowly paid legal aid criminal defence solicitor. Despite the fees being lower than ever before, and law school fees leaving many in crippling debt for years after, most firms do still do a fair bit of pro bono free work for clients.
But there are limits. Even you must understand that in Brown's Britain it is expensive to live and we can't work for free all the time.
Posted by Mark French at May 6, 2008 08:20 PM
Alls well that ends Well.
but
The BBC seem to have convicted him before trial as well.
Drug dealer allowed to keep £1.5m of assets because he could not find a legal aid barrister.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7386697.stm
Posted by liminal at May 7, 2008 12:50 AM
This is a real-life catch-22! He's wealthy, so he can't get legal aid, but he's not allowed to touch his wealth so he can't hire anyone to represent himself! I thought this sort of thing only happened in (zany) comedies!
Posted by nick g. at May 7, 2008 04:06 AM
I am not slagging lawyers here; I am talking about the people who legislate for us.
Judging from the work product it is hard to tell where incompetence ends and corruption begins. There has to be accountability and electoral politics are not the proper means.
Posted by renminbi at May 7, 2008 04:13 AM
Yes asset "freezing" (so that a person may not defend themselves) and then asset theft - a British copy of the vile American RICO (and other) unconstitionial statutes.
I seem to remember that Enoch Powell was the only member of the House of Commons to oppose this when it came in - for the rest of the M.P.s the fact that "it would only apply to drug dealers" was enough to make it O.K. (indeed to make it a noble crusade).
Of course asset "freezing" and asset theft now apply to people accused of other things.
Who now cares that Magna Carta declared that a fine could only be applied if a court of law had convicted someone of a crime?
And who now cares that it is a basic principle of Common Law that it is the duty of the Crown to PROVE ITS CASE when it claims that money or other property is the fruit of crime?
To declare that a person must prove that money or other property that he has was not earned unlawfully is to stand a basic principle of law on its head.
Posted by Paul Marks at May 7, 2008 07:08 PM
