The Cost of Defending Oneself

Generally speaking, Canadians can interact with our criminal court system in three distinct ways. If an individual is charged with a criminal offense and if that person is financially well off, they can hire a great lawyer and fight the charge; if the individual is employed and has a few assets such as a house, they can remortgage their house, sell other assets and hire a reasonable lawyer or if they are poor or have no assets they can access Legal Aid. The first individual has an excellent chance of avoiding a conviction and at the very least, a minimal chance of being incarcerated. The second individual faces a greater chance of conviction and incarceration but regardless of whether or not they are found guilty, they will have be in debt. The third individual faces the greatest threat of a conviction and incarceration. In other words, when it comes to lawyers - you get what you pay for.

However, a couple in Alberta have just created a fourth group of people who are facing a criminal trial. The couple who were charged and convicted of causing tier young son’s death by refusing to obtain medical help (the Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the judge erred on his instructions to the first jury), have asked/demanded that the Alberta government (1) reimburse them one million dollars for the legal expenses from the first trial and (2) promise to pay up to three million for their new trial. They have fired their lawyer and say that they can not afford to hire one, especially with all of the expert witnesses they need to call as part of their defense.

It has been reported that the couple have been refused a government funded lawyer because “ they don’t qualify based on their income/or assets”(CBC). In other words they do have assets but they are choosing not to use them to defend themselves.

While one should perhaps never take the mainstream media's’ reporting of events to be completely accurate, the case seems to be quite clear. The parents, whose child died from untreated meningitis, are firm believes in home remedies. They did nothing to consult medical professional who could have saved their son’s life. They only called for help when he stopped breathing.

Whether or not the police investigated their crime appropriately, whether or not the judge made some rulings that in hindsight were less fair, whether or not that judge gave inappropriate directions to the jury - their kid was sick, they tried to cure him with ingredients from the grocery or health food store, he died. They must be held responsible,

It may be profoundly unfair for a family to have to exhaust their finances to defend against unsubstantiated criminal charges, these parents could be innocent of the charges but under the present rules that people with assets have been forced to follow for decades, it is completely unfair that this couple want to rules to be changed for them. Either spend your own money or figure out how to get Legal Aid - but don’t ask taxpayers to pay for you to defend your personal beliefs that led to tragedy.

It may be time that the government starts to address the unfairness of a court system that gives results based on what kind of lawyer you can afford to hire. But this is not the case to do it for.