Reasonable Doubt: Fair trials require lawyers many people cannot afford Great article. I love the Georgia Straight. I'm especially interested in reading the reactions of the current and upcoming lawyers on RS. Quote:
|
^ You love the Georgia Straight? I can't stand that rag and their political leanings. That said, I personally know three people who went to trial and had their lawyers paid for them. And they weren't legal aid or low-end lawyers - they were the best trial lawyers you could find. So I'm not sure why I should believe this article writer (and he's a lawyer to boot) when he cherry picks certain cases but leaves important details out. Did he really have to go back to a case in Florida from 1961? Surely there must be numerous examples he could have used right here in Canada. How is it possible that I could have come into contact with three people who all had their lawyers paid for when this lawyer is apparently claiming that most people don't get lawyers? I'd like to know what his real agenda is and why he felt he needed to write such a one-sided piece. |
legal aid hasn't been funded in years the funding has consistently been cut, every year, to the point where you only get legal aid if you're facing jail time! blame the liberals i do :) unfortunately the right to a fair and speedy trial doesnt mean the right to a lawyer and so many lawyers have been fighting for Legal Aid funding but their protesting has fallen on deaf ears Phil Rankin, whose legendary father, Harry Rankin brought Legal Aid to BC, has been spear heading the fight for legal aid support; Phil is seen here protesting in front of the vancouver courthouse along with 30 other lawyers trying to bring attention to the matter back in November (sorry that particular photo is from 2011 at another protest for the same cause) http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/leg...es/bcrally.jpg BC trial lawyers withdraw services to draw attention to 'dire' legal aid funding | The Hook Quote:
as with the lawyers noted above who had refused to take legal aid funding, i know some of them had offered legal services pro bono to those clients seeking them out |
Quote:
I knew a guy, with a job just a couple bucks over min. wage, some savings, and was denied the funding. Great article Mindbomber, I hope no one hear is going, "why would I need a lawyer, I never do bad shit." Shit happens, believe it or not, and you might come at a crossroads where a chick or another party is making B.S. claims about you and you are booked. And you may very well be in need of their services. |
While the Straight has a hardcore left leaning, it's very informative and often shines a very different light on issues than other papers. I find that it's never a good idea to completely write off a medium simply because of its leanings--it's extremely helpful to see how other people inform themselves so that you can properly frame a debate or argument against them; I do that for both the right and the left. We often hear about budget cuts and inefficiencies removed and that the court system is terribly inefficient so we have to cut funding... But then we discover that the inefficiencies are because there aren't enough JPs and Judges, that there aren't enough public defenders nor prosecutors to deal with the case load, that the crown has to review each criminal case before charges are laid meaning that they have to work a case before actually working a case. People in the government often frame efficiency in terms of money spent and hours worked--but they don't talk about the inefficiencies like 18-month court delays. My uncle, who lives in a co-op housing unit in the DTES talks often about the flawed nature of the courts. Dude busts windows to steal stuff for drugs. Dude gets busted. Gets arrested and detained, charges pressed. Goes to court. Asks for ROR because he has no money, is granted it and goes free. Busts more windows next day, gets busted again. Goes to court. Crown says "your honour, he was here just yesterday for this same charge, keep him in jail!" Defence says "Your honour, an accusation is not a conviction, you cannot jail him simply for having been accused of something!" And so he gets to get serially released and reoffend until the court date nearly a year and a half later. And when the trial date approaches, he and his lawyer deal with the crown and say "look, we'll plead guilty to like...two charges, and then he'll do six months, and then you can just drop the others so that we don't waste the court's time". And then it happens, and the dude goes away for six months...rinse and repeat the rinse and repeat. tl;dr: reducing inefficiency is not the same as removing money from the system, which is in fact is often counterproductive. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't like this article because it's so typical of people with an agenda. He picks some very specific cases, leaves out details and then uses those to paint a picture of the entire justice system. For example: - He talks about Ivan Henry and his wrongful convictions. But he does nothing to explain how it came to be and "implies" it was because he wasn't allowed a lawyer (quotes Ivan Henry saying he "regrets not having a lawyer"). But he leaves out the fact Henry requested to represent himself and wanted to dismiss his lawyer. The judge "strongly advised" him not to proceed without a lawyer and he still wanted to. This coupled with mistakes made by the police are why he was convicted, not because he was denied. Tell me, how many people reading this article do you think would come to the conclusion Henry was denied a lawyer and was imprisoned because of this? That's what it sounds like to me - until you go and read up on the Henry case. - He talks about Crichton and his trial for 23 counts of sexual assault. He goes on and on about how he has no money, lives in a basement or how the crown is opposed to him getting a lawyer. When he reveals the fact that Crichton did get his lawyer he comments "Fortunately (and I say this for the sake of all involved), Crichton received funding for counsel". He makes it appear this was some sort of a "miracle" or "rarity". - He talks about the significant costs for a trial (a 5 day trial costing $25,000 or $100,000 for Crichton's trial). If you're going to trial and they set aside 5 days, then you're up for serious charges. Stealing cars or breaking into someone's house doesn't require 5 days trial time. If he wants to paint a balanced picture, then why not pick 100 cases at random where people had to rely on legal aid or court appointed lawyers and analyze those cases? Why only pick a few high-profile cases? |
Duration of trial is not correlated with the severity/worth of a case. On the civil side, I've seen trials that are worth less than 25k go for multiple weeks. On the other hand, I've seen trials worth 500-800k go for a week or less. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
BTW, what kind of idiot would pay a lawyer for "weeks" over $25K? Was it just to spite someone? Or were they hoping for a huge payout and got burned by only getting $25K? If it's the latter then it's a poor example. |
Quote:
Or do you just want to sit there and whine? |
Quote:
Of course you would walk into trial having done all your analyses and investigations. If you go to trial and there are stones left unturned, you would be a terrible lawyer. For sure more witnesses require more prep, but it also depends on the kinds of witnesses and the subject matter they are to address. Some witnesses take 5 minutes. Some take 5 days. A lot of trials that go for a long time at that price range are usually done on contingency, so nobody is paying the lawyer. He/She takes a percentage cut in the end. It's obviously not very profitable for the lawyer, but they are good for the community, good publicity, and good experiences. |
Quote:
Those of us that enjoy having deeper conversations here in O/T on a variety of topics would prefer you cut the man's post to shit, a word for word deconstruction if you want, telling him exactly why his post is completely irrelevant to all logical thought, rather than a quick drive by insult. Just a tip. |
Here is my input on this issue. I am not a lawyer yet (LLM student), nor do I focus on administrative/criminal law (I study estate planning/wealth management). Hence, I do NOT have any real world experience with these kind of issues and I apologize in advance if I get stuff wrong. Here is what I know about the right to state funded legal counsel: Procedural fairness does not necessarily entail a right to legal counsel even at one’s own expense and this was underlined in the case of Re Men’s Clothing Manufacturer’s Association. However,where a decision impairs s. 7 interest, the state MUST provide the individual with legal counsel in order to satisfy the requirements of principles of fundamental justice. That was mentioned in New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v G.(J.) [1999] In that case, given the seriousness of interests involved, complexity of proceedings, and limited capacity of the claimant, Lamer C. J. found that the principles of fundamental justice required a fair hearing and that in these circumstances a fair hearing required the Crown to provide legal aid to the C. Hence, I do think that although the provincial court may refuse state funded legal aid, on an appeal to Federal Court, the situation can change. But again, it all depends on the seriousness of the case. I do agree though that once an individual's s. 7 rights are infringed and the individual is looking at a possibility of facing jail time, for the sake of procedural fairness, that individual should be provided with a lawyer. On another note, I currently work/volunteer for Access Pro Bono of BC. You'd be surprised how many people we help. Starting from legal advice clinic, to paralegal support groups, we try to help people with multitude of issues and a variety of cases, from criminal to civil. From what I hear, BC is currently the only province with a well developed network of pro bono humani generis work. There is one downfall - not many people know about organizations like APB! Anyway, here is just my little input on this issue. My apologies if I got my law and or facts wrong. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net