The ACT Supreme Court has frozen assets belonging to a woman and two of her sons who remain behind bars accused of killing the family matriarch at her Red Hill home.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The decision, in September, scuttled plans to mount a bid for bail as the accused could not afford to pay for legal representation, forcing them dump their lawyers and apply for Legal Aid.
It prompted the former lawyer for well-known artist Melissa Beowulf, 60, and her sons Bjorn Toren Beowulf, 29, and Thorsten Beowulf, 31, to claim the freeze order made a mockery of the presumption of innocence.
However, ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Jon White, SC, said the application had been standard procedure and the law was designed to prevent accused criminals from "enjoying the benefit of their alleged offending" until the matter resolved.
Police were called to the home of Katherine Helene Panin, 81, following a report a woman fell down stairs and died on October 12 in 2015.
The alleged murder came only months after the death of her son Thorhammer "Thor" Beowulf, a sculptor and bonsai artist.
ACT Policing said in a statement officers launched an investigation and searched two Canberra properties and three vehicles in June 2016.
Lawyers for the three accused were set to launch a bail application in the ACT Magistrates Court on September 20.
But that application was thwarted and the three defendants had to apply for Legal Aid after Canberra prosecutors were granted an application to freeze their assets - including properties in Red Hill and the south coast - in the Supreme Court.
The trio will next face court in December.
Defence lawyer Adrian McKenna, who initially represented the Beowulfs, said the powers to freeze assets were "draconian" and authorities only required a "mere suspicion of an offence" to freeze all associated property.
He said effectively all his clients' assets had been frozen, including funds in a trust account specifically for legal expenses.
"The DPP are trusted with huge discretion and power to choose only appropriate cases to seek restraining orders such as high level drug trafficking or frauds. It is difficult to accept it is at all warranted here."
"They make a mockery of their presumption of innocence by denying their right to fund their own defence with lawyers of their choice."
Mr McKenna said the taxpayer would now pay the legal bill to defend the three defendants as they had been forced into relying on the "unfortunately" limited legal aid resources for the most serious charge on the criminal calendar.
There was no guarantee their assets would be returned if the family members were acquitted, he said.
Mr White could not comment on a particular case before the courts.
However, he said the general purpose of the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act was to prevent people accused of committing a serious crime from enjoying the benefit of their alleged offending until the matter had been resolved.
Mr White said it was standard practice for prosecutors to seek restraining orders for alleged proceeds of crime, pending determination of a matter.
"The act balances the presumption of innocence on the one hand, against the public interest in preventing people who are alleged to have committed serious criminal offences from benefiting from that offending on the other."
He said a restraining order could not be made unless a judge was satisfied there were reasonable grounds for suspecting the accused persons committed the alleged offences.
"If the prosecution is unable to prove that a particular accused committed the offence alleged against them, any property restrained will be returned and the territory may be liable to pay compensation for any loss or damaged incurred as a result of the restraint."
Mr White said restrained property was held in trust by the ACT Public Trustee until the resolution of the criminal proceedings.
He said an accused person could apply to the court to set aside the restraining order on the basis that there had not been reasonable grounds.
It was also possible for the accused to apply to the court to release restrained property to pay for legal representation in certain circumstances, Mr White said.
