IRP appeal in March

[Tori_K]

The real difficult thing here is finding a balance between giving the RCMP enough power to catch the people behind the wheel who legitimately should not be driving and are a hazard to the public and withholding enough power that this scenario can't happen. Out of all the IRPs given in 2013, what percentage of them were legitimately incorrect? I'm not saying this justifies the errors in judgement and/or interpretation of the rules by members of the RCMP but I feel it's unrealistic to expect anyone to make the correct judgement call or interpretation 100% of the time.

[my5cents]

The real difficult thing here is finding a balance between giving the RCMP enough power to catch the people behind the wheel who legitimately should not be driving and are a hazard to the public and withholding enough power that this scenario can't happen. Out of all the IRPs given in 2013, what percentage of them were legitimately incorrect? I'm not saying this justifies the errors in judgement and/or interpretation of the rules by members of the RCMP but I feel it's unrealistic to expect anyone to make the correct judgement call or interpretation 100% of the time.

I don't think that the percentage of wrongly punished drinking drivers is high, however, none of us want to be that person.

There are different statements regarding, basically the "Blackstone's formulation" that says "better ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer". It has also been said better a thousand guilty......

If the principle of the investigating police member dealing out a penalty at the moment of the investigation based on his/her own observations without the benefit of the unbiased review by an independent, qualified, trier of facts, is so reliable and such a good way to administer the law, then why not expand this to all crime ?

Should a person who has just made observations of an act be the person to evaluate the "evidence" they have gathered and make a judgment call on guilty or innocents ? I don't even think it would be safe to assume that a judge, who sees an act should be the one to evaluate his/her own observations and make a guilt or innocents call.

[KL3-Something]

Because the sanctions under the IRP go against the person's privilege to drive. They can't go to jail for it, they can't get a criminal record from it, they aren't compelled to attend court and they have the ability to dispute it if they want. If they don't want to be granted the privilege to drive again then they will never have to face any of the consequences of ther actions.

Similarly, if someone gets a speeding ticket they are considered guilty unless they choose to dispute it within a specified period of time.

[Donald G]

To My5cents ...

A good argument can be made either way regarding the Reg Owner grandfather having the care and control of the his vehicle that was being driven by his sober grandson. Whether the police interpreted the law right or wrong is the only matter of concern. If he interpreted it right the penalty should stand. If he interpreted it wrong the penalty should be stricken from the MVB driving record. It is up to the court to decide and the MVB to insure that their records reflect the decision made by the court.

The exact opposite of a person charged with Drunk Driving under the Criminal Code, who knows they are fully guilty pleading not guilty in the hope that their lawyer can find a technical reason for them to escape any penalty ... which used to happen regularly and is the reason that the Administrative avenue of dealing with drunk driving had to be found.

When lawyers and judges abdicate their responsibility to protect the public there is no alternative but to eliminate them from the process. How many additional people died or now live in wheelchairs as a result of their years long stupidity?

[my5cents]

To My5cents ...

A good argument can be made either way regarding the Reg Owner grandfather having the care and control of the his vehicle that was being driven by his sober grandson. Whether the police interpreted the law right or wrong is the only matter of concern. If he interpreted it right the penalty should stand. If he interpreted it wrong the penalty should be stricken from the MVB driving record. It is up to the court to decide and the MVB to insure that their records reflect the decision made by the court.

The exact opposite of a person charged with Drunk Driving under the Criminal Code, who knows they are fully guilty pleading not guilty in the hope that their lawyer can find a technical reason for them to escape any penalty ... which used to happen regularly and is the reason that the Administrative avenue of dealing with drunk driving had to be found.

When lawyers and judges abdicate their responsibility to protect the public there is no alternative but to eliminate them from the process. How many additional people died or now live in wheelchairs as a result of their years long stupidity?

I think you'll find that the law and case law supports the fact that the passenger was not in care and control of the vehicle by a huge margin, it's not even close.

The down side to the IRP system is that too much happens at the roadside without oversight.

We have to take the drinking driver off the road at the time of the offence or suspected offence. Only an idiot would argue against that. The 24 hour suspension did that. Now we've made the road safe for the moment, we then need a system, perhaps with the same penalties as the IRP, maybe even more severe that kick in after THE ACCUSED CHOOSES if he/she wants things to stand or have some type of hearing.

Yes the system needed/needs fixing and streamlining. It shouldn't take a police officer eight hours or more to complete paperwork to forward charges to crown and then to realized a low conviction rate.

I do wonder if the time expended and the low conviction rate experience by lone RCMP members doing generally the low volume of charges is mirrored by the two man Drinking Driver teams in Vancouver doing a high volume.

I don't think that streamlining a system by placing the police officer on the street as judge and jury is fair, not to the motorist and not to the police officer.

As for pleading not guilty to an offense.....

There are two ways of looking at a person who actually does know/feel that they are guilty of an offence and pleads "Not Guilty" and goes through the process of a trial.
1) He/She is a bad person for "trying to beat the system" and should have taken his/her lumps
2) It is his/her right as a citizen of Canada to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and they have chosen to request that the crown prove their guilt.

I say number 2, you likely number 1.

Let's take, for example a simple MVA charge where a person disputes a traffic ticket and goes before a JP and chooses to defend him/herself.

Assuming the constable was correct and the person actually committed the violation and the person knows they did. There are two types of people :

Person A) Disputes the ticket, attends the hearing, first to make sure evidence is tendered against him/herself (ie the cop shows up), listens to the evidence against him/herself asks polite intelligent questions of the constable, basically testing the evidence. Declines to testify, because he/she knows that they cannot legally take the stand and lie (perjury), and isn't that kind of person.

Person B) disputes the ticket, attends the hearing, listens to the evidence against him/herself asks questions of the constable, likely poorly based question and likely in a combative aggressive manner, this is his/her chance to get at the "cop", he/she is not just testing the evidence. Takes the stand in his/her own defense and maintains his innocents making up facts and slanting the events.

Person A is exercising his/her rights as a citizen. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pleading not guilty and testing the evidence. This does not make Person A bad person this is their right.
Person B is your typical jerk.

Now as for your comment "When lawyers and judges abdicate their responsibility to protect the public there is no alternative but to eliminate them from the process", this is very dangerous territory.

I always thought that the police were there to gather evidence and present it in court with the assistance of lawyers (prosecutors), other lawyers were there to test the evidence and between the two make sure the judge had an opportunity to see both sides and make an informed ruling based on the law and rules of evidence.

[goatboy]

With respect to the grandfather, which I think is a perfect example of why the IRP system is wrong.

The police officer wrongly thinks a passenger in his own car falls into the legal category of "in care and control" [which he DOES NOT] when he is being driven by a sober "L" driver. He gives a demand to the passenger.

a) The passenger, who has NO legal requirement to blow, refuses to blow. The car is impounded, the passenger's license is seized, the IRP against the passenger is in full swing. There is nothing the passenger can do at this point to limit the damage that this vehicle seizure and license seizure will cause to the passenger for at least several days.

b) The passenger, who has NO legal requirement to blow, blows and registers a "Fail". The car is impounded, the passenger's license is seized, the IRP against the passenger is in full swing. There is nothing the passenger can do at this point to limit the damage that this vehicle seizure and license seizure will cause to the passenger for at least several days.

This is why a police officer, at the roadside, should not be permitted to do this.

In this case the passenger was, I assume, retired and even though there were severe financial penalties for being the victim of police incompetence I don't think they were that severe. What if this had been a working person, who lost his vehicle and license for however long it would take to right the wrong committed by the police. Lets say his wife couldn't use the car to travel to work, he couldn't work because of not having a license. Then what ?

That's why you punish people AFTER they are proven guilty.

You cite one example. It's like saying that there are innocent people in jail so the court system is broken. It may well be, but the good of the many DOES outweigh the needs of the few and the courts uphold this all the time in reference to Charter breaches etc.

BTW, I don't know enough about the legislation to know if what happened to the Grandpa was legal or not.

[my5cents]

You cite one example. It's like saying that there are innocent people in jail so the court system is broken. It may well be, but the good of the many DOES outweigh the needs of the few and the courts uphold this all the time in reference to Charter breaches etc.

I think what you are talking about is Section 24 of the Charter of Rights -

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Yes we probably do have innocent people in jail and they had the benefit of access to the courts, now, what is the likelihood that a victim of the IRP, who doesn't have access to those same rights, may be wrongly punished ?

BTW, I don't know enough about the legislation to know if what happened to the Grandpa was legal or not.

Don't feel bad, neither did the police officer who took his vehicle and his driver's license.

[Donald G]

To My5cents ...

So you are saying change the whole law and go back to the system that was killing 40 more people in B.C. each year because one officer may have interpreted the law wrong? And one person had their VEHICLE impounded when they possibly should not have done so? Forty dead people is better than one POSSIBLY incorrectly interpreted vehicle impoundment?

The court has not yet even decided the issue, but apparently you sure have.

[abbyrugby]

To My5cents ...

So you are saying change the whole law and go back to the system that was killing 40 more people in B.C. each year because one officer may have interpreted the law wrong? And one person had their VEHICLE impounded when they possibly should not have done so? Forty dead people is better than one POSSIBLY incorrectly interpreted vehicle impoundment?

The court has not yet even decided the issue, but apparently you sure have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

[zzontar]

Because the sanctions under the IRP go against the person's privilege to drive. They can't go to jail for it, they can't get a criminal record from it, they aren't compelled to attend court and they have the ability to dispute it if they want. If they don't want to be granted the privilege to drive again then they will never have to face any of the consequences of ther actions.

Similarly, if someone gets a speeding ticket they are considered guilty unless they choose to dispute it within a specified period of time.

If you have it on your abstract, it can prevent you from employment or cause you to lose employment, with all the lovely effects that come with it. You must also know by now that disputing it was completely pointless to some as they could justify their guilty verdict with the completely unconstitional laws.

[Donald G]

To Abbyrugby ...

My last comment stands. Your video clearly depicts the basis for your point of view.

[my5cents]

To My5cents ...

So you are saying change the whole law and go back to the system that was killing 40 more people in B.C. each year because one officer may have interpreted the law wrong? And one person had their VEHICLE impounded when they possibly should not have done so? Forty dead people is better than one POSSIBLY incorrectly interpreted vehicle impoundment?

The court has not yet even decided the issue, but apparently you sure have.

I always worry about people who quote stats as though they are a sure thing. I'm not saying that lives haven't been saved, but I really don't know if things were left the same if 40 people would be dead, nobody does. Next you'll say "ya, but if only one person was alive today it was worth it".
and, no,,, the "system wasn't killing 40 people", pretty dramatic sounding but just that.

IF we executed every convicted drug trafficker for the last 20 years, how many people would be alive that have died because of drug abuse. Did "the system" kill those victims of drug abuse ?

We will have to agree to disagree. You feel the end justifies the means, I don't. Face it these changes were made because the police couldn't rack up enough charges and convictions to curb the number of drinking drivers. The police using the easy way out because of other priorities chose to over use 24 hour prohibitions to such a degree that the average drinking driver had a much greater expectation of a 24 hour prohibition than a charge under the CCofC.

To free up police and to avoid court cases going South, the BC government in it's "wisdom" decided that the trial would be held at curbside by the police.

All I say is, if that is so good then lets apply the same standards on other crimes. A drunk driver MAY get involved in a collision and hurt or kill someone. A sexual predator WILL hurt someone, so when we catch one, no trial, lynch them. Of course there will be a few mistakes but look how many victims will be saved, isn't that what counts ?

and... "The court has not yet even decided the issue, but apparently you sure have" Well since the vehicle and the grandfather's license were seized pursuant to the IRP a court won't be involved will it. It will be a bureaucrat.

You could decide for yourself if the grandfather was "in care and control", there's lots of case law on "care and control", and there's the Criminal Code. Check it out, it's pretty obvious.

[my5cents]

Because the sanctions under the IRP go against the person's privilege to drive. They can't go to jail for it, they can't get a criminal record from it, they aren't compelled to attend court and they have the ability to dispute it if they want. If they don't want to be granted the privilege to drive again then they will never have to face any of the consequences of ther actions.

Similarly, if someone gets a speeding ticket they are considered guilty unless they choose to dispute it within a specified period of time.

Actually aren't you innocent during the dispute period ? After that period expires you are deemed guilty. Thus the reason the violation isn't entered on one's driving record until after the dispute period.

As for the IRP you don't have the ability to dispute, you have the ability to appeal. There's a big difference between someone who is innocent until either a dispute period expires, they plead guilty, or are found guilty vs someone who is guilty and allowed to appeal their guilt.

Nit picking here but..... "If they don't want to be granted the privilege to drive again then they will never have to face any of the consequences of ther actions. " isn't the fine payable no matter what ???

You can walk away from your car, never pay the driver's license reinstatement fee, refuse to take the Responsible Driver Course, but I think the province wants their fine.

[Donald G]

To My5cents ...

I would call your last comment an extremists effort to abdicate all blame for the court system that resulted in about ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY INNOCENT MOTHERS, FATHERS, SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO BE KILLED ACROSS CANADA EACH YEAR. And yet prevent society moving to a system that, according to the latest measurements, is capable of preventing about 40% of those deaths.

Only a person who personally gained from the old system, like a lawyer, would consider one persons vehicle being impounded as being comperable to forty innocent people being killed in B.C. (about 480 additional kills across Canada).

Stupidity vs reality.

[my5cents]

To My5cents ...

I would call your last comment an extremists effort to abdicate all blame for the court system that resulted in about ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY INNOCENT MOTHERS, FATHERS, SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO BE KILLED ACROSS CANADA EACH YEAR. And yet prevent society moving to a system that, according to the latest measurements, is capable of preventing about 40% of those deaths.

Only a person who personally gained from the old system, like a lawyer, would consider one persons vehicle being impounded as being comperable to forty innocent people being killed in B.C. (about 480 additional kills across Canada).

Stupidity vs reality.

Like I said if this is such a great system it would be wrong to stop at an offence that might hurt people and eliminate trials, for offences that always hurt people.

You sound like you are debating from a position of weakness when you emphasize one statistic (40%) and play up "one persons vehicle being impounded".

Great stats, did you know that statistically fewer babies are born in February than any other month ? Yes, known fact.