Guilty, not guilty; break the law, not break the law. That is not the issue here; the problem is that is that if you are a New Brunswicker and you are charged with a summary charge and cannot afford a lawyer the likelihood of successfully defending yourself is highly remote. Those who can afford legal representation are the ones who are most likely to present legally sound arguments in to the courts and the courts will come to a decision based on the facts and the arguments presented.
The lesson that is learned from Charles Leblanc is that our system inadvertently discriminate between those who are fortunate to afford representation and those who are unfortunate and cannot hire a lawyer.
What available options are there for those who can not afford a lawyer. One option is to plead guilty and forfeit any defenses that might be available to the person. After pleading guilty the person is at the mercy of the court for sentencing. The other option is to self-represent.
The moment one self-represents they are at a disadvantage because they don’t know the rules of the game, additionally don’t know how the game is played. How can they best represent themselves when they have to argue against a prosecutor who is well experience with court procedures and knows how to present legally sound arguments to persuade the judge to agree with the prosecution. While the onus is on the crown to find someone guilty, it is the defenses’ responsibility to counter the prosecution claim, but in order for the defense to do that they have to have the legal tools to do so.
Without money how can the defendant pay for legal document which may be contained within those documents information to help the defence's legal arguement. According to Charles, the clerk told him the cost for him to have his transcripts would be $400 which he cannot pay for, in essence the court refused because of affordability the transcript which could provide information crucial of his defence.
Our legislators need to address this inequality in the administration of justice so that everyone criminal or civil is on the same playing field regardless to affordability.
The key argument to why legal aid will not supply legal representation for summary conviction because of the costs to provide a lawyer to every financially disadvantage person. But in the long term, the cost to the taxpayer may be greater with self-representation, then if a lawyer was supplied to the accused on the onset.
Dennis Oland accused of killing his father has not spent one day in jail, while many with similar charges where held in custody upon being charge. The difference is Oland has the resources to purchase the talents of Canada’s best legal minds to come to his aid.
First of all Charles it is a set up by he leaders of fredericton as a pure harassment.
ReplyDeleteBeing prosecuted by organized evil means you are doing some good for the people.
I believe if you have a good judge not influenced the case will be kicked out and hopefully the judge orders such harassment against you stopped or else.
You can believe it is based on lawyers but it is not. Everyone in NB or I should say the good people of NB knows it is a harassment case from your good friends not only in the police force but leaders above them. How high this case will tell.
If found guilty it means you are right the justice system is manure and I mean pig manure smell.
If only some evil leaders then the case will be closed and God allowed you justice for a change. My bet is the judge will be an honest judge and your case may show more people how we need balance.
For sure your case stinks as poor judgement on the prosecution or pure harassment.
Relax and have fun seeing evil in action. Remember the more they do to you the more heat they will have when they all land in he'll.
Have a great weekend Charles justice will prevail if not here then after life.