Seems it's because he is a bankrupt so it would not be fair to reward him with money when he never paid his legal fees in the first place. I'm guessing it's the same principle as when someone who is receiving free legal aid isn't entitled to a refund of the defence costs!
But even so, I don't understand the problem that the law has with cases funded by third parties.
Well, Seánie was innocent. Innocent I tells ya! What's more, he must have known he was innocent all along.
So the million yoyos he blew on defending himself was utterly and unneccessarily extravagent. Why should the state fund such wastefulness? All he had to do was draft a statement for the court outlining why he was innocent, the glaring truth of which would have swatted away the entirity of the frivolous and pointless prosecution. That might have set him back a couple of grand at most.
If I decide to pave the road outside my house with gold slabs, I can hardly invoice the county council for the work, can I?
Luckily for Seánie, he has an independantly wealthy wife - so he can well afford his legal costs.
He really was lucky in love, wasn't he?