Edmond Campbell, Senior News Coordinator

Attorney-at-law K.D. Knight, has urged the Government to remove the general consumption tax (GCT) on legal fees for criminal cases.

Calling this charge "oppressive", Mr. Knight argued that someone who was facing a criminal charge has to pay both his attorney and the state.

Contributing to the debate on an Act to Amend the Legal Proficiency Act in Parliament yesterday, Mr. Knight said, however, that he had no objection to the charge remaining on civil cases.

"More and more, I am feeling uncomfortable with GCT being attached to criminal cases where so many of those who are charged before the court, can't pay the fees and, therefore, they have to go under the Legal Aid Act," said Knight.

Consider an amendment

He asked Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller to consider an amendment to the relevant statute removing GCT from fees charged for criminal defence.

"The fact is, the persons who suffer most are the poor, and we would be most pleased if the administration recognised that fact and does something about it," Mr. Knight continued.

Meanwhile, Opposition Spokes-man on Justice, Delroy Chuck, proposed that the General Legal Council recommend a ceiling on the amount attorneys charge for contingency fees. He told his parliamentary colleagues that contingency rates which are now set by attorneys should be brought under a regulatory framework.

"It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the General Legal Council needs to put in place some guidelines, because it could go out of proportion in our jurisdiction," Mr. Chuck contended.

Exorbitant sums

On this issue Mr. Chuck received support from Mr. Knight who also raised concerns about the exorbitant sums being paid to attorneys for contingency fees.

The Legal Profession Act which seeks to protect the public from misconduct by attorneys-at-law was passed in the Senate in early February.

It provides for changes in relation to: the jurisdiction and powers of the disciplinary committee of the General Legal Council, persons practising as attorneys without a practising certificate or through fraud or misrepresentation; and increases in fines for breaches of the provisions.

For wilfully impersonating a lawyer, it is proposed that this fine should move from $200 to $500,000, while for practising without being duly qualified or entitled to practise, or in the name ofor through the agency of an attorney entitled to practise, the fine will move from $200 to $500,000.