The criminal courts are a battlefield field whereby the defendant must defend him or herself against the onslaught of the prosecution. The prosecution will have taken a long time to prepare their case, sometimes many months and even years. In taking such a long time, necessary to ensure that all the proper protocols are satisfied, the costs can mount up considerably. Also mounting up are the high costs of paying the defence lawyers and expert witnesses.
Many people question the need for a publicly funded criminal defence. They ask why a criminal should have their taxes spent in order to give them a chance of walking free? Questions like these are reasonable when you consider how much pressure public sector spending is under.https://agpllp.ca
The nature of the adversarial criminal system means that a defendant has the right to defend themselves against allegations that might well be false. History has shown that the prosecution do not always get it right. They do not assume innocence, far from it. The task is to find enough evidence necessary to present a strong case. Very often the pressure to bring cases to court is so great that important evidence which could be used to mitigate a defendant is left out.
This is why it is important for every case to be “tested”. This is the job of the criminal defence team. They must challenge the evidence and if it is found lacking, the court must not be allowed to rely on it. This is why the prosecution must be very careful when bringing their case and why they must cover every eventuality. This is also why their costs can mount up in the first place, and again why costs are incurred by the defence checking that all procedures have been complied with.
One area where there is opportunity for badly prepared cases is the confiscation regime. This is based on different presumptions of innocence. Because it takes place after a conviction, the prosecution is allowed to make assumptions. It can assume that any income or assets are criminal property. It is up to the defence to actually prove if this is not the case.
Sometimes the prosecution will make outlandish assumptions that present the defendant with the need to prove where he obtained his wealth. When this happens, it is reasonable that he can be assisted by competent professionals to argue where any legitimate money came from. In this respect the funding needs for criminal defendants are more obvious.
Often also asked is why does the criminal not pay for his own defence? In confiscation proceedings it has already been proved that he is a criminal. However, as noted above these assumptions of guilt extend to all of a defendant’s finances that are often remote from the crime he committed. In normal predicate crime cases, the presumption of innocence remains and it would be unfair to bankrupt a person who is falsely accused.