1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

[diggerdick]

At least 1,137 B.C. drivers who were penalized under B.C.'s tough impaired driving laws will be getting some of their money back, B.C.'s Deputy Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has confirmed.

Deputy Supt. Stephanie Melvin says the offence will remain on the drivers' records, but they will no longer have to pay for driver education classes or the expensive ignition interlock systems they may have been required to install in their vehicles.

"We've gone through and are releasing these people from their requirements to do the remedial programs, which is the responsible driver program education and counseling and the ignition interlock program," she said.

Some of the affected drivers paid more than $2,600 to attend the driver education programs and install the ignition-lock systems in their vehicles.

The drivers were caught during a three-week period in November 2011 just before the B.C. Supreme Court ruled parts of B.C.'s tough drunk driving rules were unconstitutional.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Jon Sigurdson ruled that penalties for drivers were too serious for the law to have no adequate appeal system.

Justice Minister Shirley Bond said last month the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles was reviewing the roadside prohibitions.
Law amended

The impaired driving law was amended by the government last May, in order to strengthen the rights of accused impaired drivers to challenge roadside screening tests and appeal immediate roadside prohibitions.

The amended law requires police to inform drivers of their right to challenge their first roadside screening test by requesting a second test on a different machine.

Meanwhile Vancouver lawyer Paul Doroshenko says he has filed legal challenges over driver penalty program, arguing it appeared to be mandatory despite some drivers having perfect driving records prior to the roadside prohibition.

Doroshenko says he's now considering launching legal test cases that could challenge the 35,000 penalties issued to B.C. drivers since the province introduced its new impaired laws in September 2010.

Accused drivers are also granted more power to appeal and seek reviews through the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

Yesterday, Port Moody police revealed improperly calibrated devices led to 14 invalid roadside suspensions for drunk driving in 2011. The government has promised to erase the suspensions from the drivers' records and reimburse any fines or fees. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... eview.html

[diggerdick]

The Liberal government's Mickey Mouse law,designed to circumvent Canadian rights and freedoms making the police judge and jury at the roadside using only a screening device never designed to prosecute. is going to eventually completely collapse . At .08 you should be charged with a criminal offense using a true breathalyzer and then be allowed to have a lawyer in front of a judge .

Of course, the police will hate that.

[JUST-SAYIN]

You may be right diggerdick .

I heard a rumour tonight that they may in fact (have) abolish(ed) the new laws, revert back to the old system, and then throw the book at anyone charged with being over .08.

The problems with the tiered system are well documented. While the amendments made last May cleared up some of the issues, the average person had great difficulty determining when they were ""over the limit"". This made many good people criminals in the eyes of their communities, families and employer's; that damage can never be un-done. In addition, the chronic drunk drivers and those whom choose to drive when they know full well they were over the limit did not skip a beat and no penalty will be enough to prevent them from doing so.

In Canada, we struggle with this issue a great deal; what amount of alcohol can a person consume and still drive safely. Of course, this is because everyone is different, there is no one correct answer. Some countries have ZERO tolerance, because that is the only "one size fits all" solution. Other countries that set reasonable limits (mostly .08), have penalties so harsh if your caught, that only a true criminal would consider breaking the law.

Hmmm, with an election coming up, wouldn't this be a great way to get some votes? If so, are we trading lives for votes?

I guess we'll just have to wait for an official announcement.

[Donald G]

I wonder how many lives of innocent men, women and children were saved by the removal of the 1,137 'tested and failed' drivers from the road. By testing and prohibiting them from going further on down the road to their participation in whatever carnage was awaiting the unsuspecting public. The only reason that the old impaired, drunk and over .08 legislation had to be changed is because criminal court lawyers and judges had all but completely negated the ability of the police to enforce such laws. About 1,250 innocent victims were being killed each year on Canadian roads as a result of the collective effect of the many reasons dreamed up for such cases to be dismissed ... or traded for NON criminal impaired and over .08 under the provincial Motor Vehicle Act. In many respects the present JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION of the charter has put the rights of the accused person ahead of the right of innocent Canadian men, women and children to life. The courts appear determined to put the right of criminals ahead of the right to life. That is a morally unjustifiable position. A far more balanced approach is needed.

[zzontar]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... 54-33-.htm

"About 30 per cent of fatalities are attributable to distracted driving and 37 per cent of serious injury accidents are attributable to distracted driving," says Clark.

Picture those stats being for drinking and driving and what the penalties would be. I guess it must be more pleasant to be killed by someone who's texting.

[Donald G]

To diggerdick ...

Do you really think that the police will actually hate the enforced changes to the new legislation as you stated above? Since they get paid to enforce the laws we have in the way determined by the courts, regardless of what such 'ways and laws' may be, do you really think that such decisions make a difference in their lives when they go home? Is it not society itself that loses or benefits ... and is thus "maddened or gladdened" ... by the effects of such court decisions, rather than the police?

Unless of course you also believe that individual police officers really emotionally care about victim prevention ...

[simnut]

I wonder how many lives of innocent men, women and children were saved by the removal of the 1,137 'tested and failed' drivers from the road. By testing and prohibiting them from going further on down the road to their participation in whatever carnage was awaiting the unsuspecting public.

A 24 hour prohibition would have done the same thing.........

The only reason that the old impaired, drunk and over .08 legislation had to be changed is because criminal court lawyers and judges had all but completely negated the ability of the police to enforce such laws.

So, taking the court system right out of the equation is the answer? Try again...

About 1,250 innocent victims were being killed each year on Canadian roads as a result of the collective effect of the many reasons dreamed up for such cases to be dismissed ... or traded for NON criminal impaired and over .08 under the provincial Motor Vehicle Act.

Can you show me the "stats" on that? I think you would call that "made up".

In many respects the present JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION of the charter has put the rights of the accused person ahead of the right of innocent Canadian men, women and children to life. The courts appear determined to put the right of criminals ahead of the right to life. That is a morally unjustifiable position. A far more balanced approach is needed.

Hang on here.... We are talking about drivers that receive ADMINISTRATIVE (non criminal) penalties for impaired driving in BC. EVERY one here that opposes the administrative sanctions are FULLY behind charging those that are impaired and charged criminally, especially those that kill to the fullest, criminal extent! You cannot use the word criminal when discussing the administrative sanction. If you do, then you wouldn't be behind these sanctions either.

[diggerdick]

Donald G

The madd fanatics that Seem to be the most behind the civil law Seem to be Able to quote unsubstantiated stats at will
In order to justify this Mickey Mouse law that takes the courts Judges and lawyers out of the system.

They always seem to fall back on the ,you wouldn't be against it if you had someone in your family die from a drunk driver.

Well I want drunk drivers nailed to the wall. massive fines, years Without licenses and even prison sentences. but I don't want that decision made by a cop with a toy in his hand when there is highly accurate precision devices at the police station that will Provide proof without doubt that a crime is being committed.

And if everything is done correctly by the cop , the judge will prosecute.

I always get a laugh reading our resident authority saying there's less paperwork so they can get back on the street quicker. why have precision and accuracy when you can treat our justice system like a fast food drive-through.

[Donald G]

To ssimnuat ....

Withe all due respect ... Either you are profoundly ignorant of the realities of our criminal court system, especially as it relates to impaired driving,or you are a lawyer with a calculated interest in attempting to discredit those who do not accept the judicial party line from which you continue to profit. The stats identifying the carnage left behind by drinking drivers has been available from Stats Canada for years. The sometimes ridiculous legal positions argued in criminal court and unrealistic judicial decisions handed down that I alluded to can be heard in any of our criminal courtrooms or are readily available on the net. Of special interest are the decisions that made it all but impossible for the police to successfully prosecute the drinking driving provisions under the criminal code and the associated nonsense related to the interpretation of the charter as it relates to the authority of the police to investigate drunk driving. Collectively those are my grounds for the comments that I made. And your grounds justifying the diatribe with which you responded are ...?

[simnut]

To ssimnuat ....

Withe all due respect ... Either you are profoundly ignorant of the realities of our criminal court system, especially as it relates to impaired driving,

As profoundly knowledgable of the realities of our criminal court system... as a layman can be.

or you are a lawyer with a calculated interest in attempting to discredit those who do not accept the judicial party line from which you continue to profit.

Hate to disappoint you, but I'm not a lawyer...I actually JUST drive transit.

The stats identifying the carnage left behind by drinking drivers has been available from Stats Canada for years.

Thats not what you said by saying, and I quote from your previous post:

About 1,250 innocent victims were being killed each year on Canadian roads as a result of the collective effect of the many reasons dreamed up for such cases to be dismissed ... or traded for NON criminal impaired and over .08 under the provincial Motor Vehicle Act.

How can you say those 1250 victims are the result of colletive effect of many reasons dreamed dada dada dada dada. You can't, can you? Many of those victims could be the result of first time impaired drivers...where NOTHING that happened in the courts previously would have ANYTHING to do with it....so that statement you make is worthless.....

Of special interest are the decisions that made it all but impossible for the police to successfully prosecute the drinking driving provisions under the criminal code and the associated nonsense related to the interpretation of the charter as it relates to the authority of the police to investigate drunk driving.

Would you like me to start a list and show you where (and remember, I respect officers to the fullest) the officer just plainly screwed up? Or equipment was handled wrong....procedure not followed? I can come up with a list of VALID reasons why the impaired charge did not go through. There is a reason we have procedure and law....it is so we ALL know where we stand!!!

Collectively those are my grounds for the comments that I made. And your grounds justifying the diatribe with which you responded are ...?

Have you had the pleasure of dealing with the OSMV in the past? I don't think so...or you would see where "appealing" that route just isn't for the right of the citizen of BC. Did you know that even the Supreme Court of BC cannot tell the OSMV to reverse it's decision, even though the Supreme Court Judge recognizes a reason for doing so? I don't think you do.....

Remember, I'm not advocating impaired driving, I am advocating the rights of drivers that have a valid reason to dispute. And if you want to discuss this, bring it on......you may be surprised at what I DO know....

[Donald G]

To ssimnuat ... Your comments are ...

False. A 24 hour suspension wimpy keeps a drunk driver off the road for 24 hours. Not a deterrent.
False.
Wrong.
False premise ... See case law (especially the charter regarding search and seizure) and visualize the effects of the limitations and restrictions placed on police by that case law.
Thank you ... Your willingness to comment sustains my faith in Canadian citizens, however employed.
Is being killed by a first time drunk driver different than by a habitual drunk? I miss your point.
WHat is described as an officer screwup is often a lat ditch attempt to save lives an prevent crime. Classic and routine incidents involve the police having inadequate grounds to stop and check a recognized habitual drunk driver, check the trunk of a criminal or gang member driven vehicle and seizing loaded firearms, stolen property or drugs being transported. The charges do not stand up and the police get criticized but the public is safer as a result of the police action. The tremendous change in the authority of the police to seize and admit evidence into court is one of the less known but serious problems facing safety in our society.
With respect.

[my5cents]

Donald G

The madd fanatics that Seem to be the most behind the civil law Seem to be Able to quote unsubstantiated stats at will
In order to justify this Mickey Mouse law that takes the courts Judges and lawyers out of the system.

They always seem to fall back on the ,you wouldn't be against it if you had someone in your family die from a drunk driver.

Well I want drunk drivers nailed to the wall. massive fines, years Without licenses and even prison sentences. but I don't want that decision made by a cop with a toy in his hand when there is highly accurate precision devices at the police station that will Provide proof without doubt that a crime is being committed.

And if everything is done correctly by the cop , the judge will prosecute.

I always get a laugh reading our resident authority saying there's less paperwork so they can get back on the street quicker. why have precision and accuracy when you can treat our justice system like a fast food drive-through.

[simnut]

To ssimnuat ... Your comments are ...

False. A 24 hour suspension wimpy keeps a drunk driver off the road for 24 hours. Not a deterrent.
Wrong.

Did I say it was a deterent? I said it takes drunks off the road.........which it does. I'll bet the stats change dramatically if all the officers do is give 24 hour prohibitions.
You have to catch the drunk before you can "do" anything.......The criminal charges are the deterent.

False premise ... See case law (especially the charter regarding search and seizure) and visualize the effects of the limitations and restrictions placed on police by that case law.

IF proper procedure is followed.....successful search and seizure cases and anything involved will and do happen.

Is being killed by a first time drunk driver different than by a habitual drunk? I miss your point.

Your premise was that the people that got off, or the fact that people can get off impaired driving charges easy is the reason those people were killed. REad what you said:

About 1,250 innocent victims were being killed each year on Canadian roads as a result of the collective effect of the many reasons dreamed up for such cases to be dismissed ... or traded for NON criminal impaired and over .08 under the provincial Motor Vehicle Act.

Did you know that successful impaired driving charges in Canada are at 78%? The highest rate for any criminal offence category studied by StatsCan. Surprising, isn't it? So, successful conviction on the criminal charge of impaired driving isn't really the reason to bring in these administrative sanctions. So what would be one reason....more officer time on the road...a good thing.....catch more impaired drivers that way. One of the reasons I say a 24 hour prohibition works the same way. Catch 'em and take 'em off the road before they become a statistic. Actually, catching more impaired drivers is changing the stats, not the fear of the administrative sanctions or "deterent" as you call it.

WHat is described as an officer screwup is often a lat ditch attempt to save lives an prevent crime. Classic and routine incidents involve the police having inadequate grounds to stop and check a recognized habitual drunk driver, check the trunk of a criminal or gang member driven vehicle and seizing loaded firearms, stolen property or drugs being transported.

Again, you compare impaired driving with potential killers, thieves etc. Sounds like you agree impaired driving SHOULD be a criminal offense.......not what we call it in BC.

The charges do not stand up and the police get criticized but the public is safer as a result of the police action. The tremendous change in the authority of the police to seize and admit evidence into court is one of the less known but serious problems facing safety in our society.

Then we should fix the system, NOT replace it with an "easier" way to go.

[Donald G]

To Mr ssimnuat ...

Repeating the same information over and over does not make it any truer.

We are way too far apart in experience to have a meaningful discussion in this forum. Go in peace my Canadian friend.

[simnut]

To Mr ssimnuat ...

Repeating the same information over and over does not make it any truer.

We are way too far apart in experience to have a meaningful discussion in this forum. Go in peace my Canadian friend.

You bet Mr. Donald Duc......errr....G