Smellie CJ
<doc> IN CHAMBERS
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
OF 2002
REGINA
v
LEWIS DENTON ROWE
Anthony Smedie Chief Justice
A.M
APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID
RULING
Mr. L.D.R.
He also seeks
in Nickol's Crown Counsel
in Rowe defendant in person
2002
application for legal aid in order to pay for his representation
against him by the Crown.
a legal aid to secure representation for the law in
crisis of defence of
Mr. Rowe is
35 bankruptcy.
36 Mr. Rowe is
37 million". But
38 Received and
his petition in
costs of about $29
ion goes to the </doc>
<doc> 1 Indeed
2 fraudul
3 scheme
4 to 1999
5 There are
6 $350,000
7 of assets
8 notes from
9 personally
the independent forensic accounting evidence in respect of scheme for which Mr. Rowe is charged, alleges that it something in the order of $13.4 million dollars in "conn-
e assets in Receivership with a net worth of anywhere bef. That vast variation in estimated value is due to the illicit use in the form of certain American technology sto a company called Title Loans Express Inc, to which Mr. loaned $48 million dollar. The
this Cash 4 Titles
received through that
missions" between 1996
ween $8.7 million to
aid and uncertain value
kids promissory
Rowe says he
10 notes for c
11 also contro-
12 wife who o
13 $350,000.
14 The technol-
15 be worth on:
16 Those are the
17 $388,000; for
18 But there were
19 since gifted on
$225,000. He wishes his Receiver to reject that claim is the house in which he lives at Magellan Quay, Grand Canyon the other half) and in which his half share is estimated
ey shares were once valued at some $6.5 million dollars /$56,000.
assets in the Receivership. Against them there are already Rowe's costs and fees.
2 until recently, other admitted assets available to Mr. Rowe are
never to redeem his
The Receivership
man (held with his
3 to be worth
but are now said to
y abilities of
yes which he has
20 To one of his
21 He says those he
22 now live in the
23 he said upon trust,
ons he gifted £466,988 and to another £720,000.
His enabled them to clear their mortgages in their London country. That they each have 3 children and cannot afford
houses and they
d to fund his </doc>
<doc> 1 legal
2 and se-
3 There
4 which
5 control
6 ofthe w
7 My view
8 which th-
9 apparently
costs. This is notwithstanding that they are respectively as
re-employed businessman. .
s also the L.D. Rowe Trust upon which Mr. Rowe settled,
he says has declined in value by one-half and being a trust,
Mr. Rowe says that despite that trust settlement, he now
easily stipend of$750 allowed him by the Receiver.
is to whatever the legal relationships may be, these are
Court must require that moral obligations are observed by each
person to the fullest extent possible. It is
a banking professional
£418,617 in assets but
over which he has no
subsists by means only
circumstances in
before the Court might
10 His sons
11 to require
12 And while
13 must surely
present cir-
15 My decision
16 been recent
17 costs ofhis
18 for his defen-
tion, he must pursue with the costs of Mr. Rowe must certainly feel compelled to observe those obligations
that they do.
I am not told who the beneficiaries of the L.D. Rowe Trust be owed at least moral obligations if they are other than
unstances confronting him.
It is that Mr. Rowe must assert the moral obligations to the
so generous, to provide an initial sum of at least £50,00
learning this year (the trial is not yet underway but prepar-
ation). If Mr. Rowe and his lawyer are amenable, that sum
's defence.
and I feel compelled
ssa are, Mr. Rowe
himself, given the
use to whom he has
0 for negotiating the
tion must be made
may be held on
legal aid rates
I am aware th-
being presum
e Court Funds Office for disbursement against his legal a.
If the Receiver will be seeking to have the gifts and settibly, fraudulent dispositions,
costs to be taxed at
amount set aside as </doc>
<doc> 1 I will be prepared to reconsider his situation further in the court
and having regard to all the circumstances then prevailing, separate matter of Mr. Rowe's privilege against self-incrimination is
following.
invited to make submissions in support of his application; nothing he discloses to the Court can be used against him again.
It appears that the issues mentioned above were already known to me prior to this application or ruling against him.
Of next year's legal aid
nomination I am obliged to
for legal aid on the
in the criminal
own the Crown, to the
10 evidence
11
12
13
14
15
Anthony Sk
Chief Justice
18
Dated the /
19
20
21
22 </doc>