October 2016

I’m curious about how many people who have been through BC’s Administrative Justice process with the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme feel they’ve been given a fair shake at the hearing. I’m curious to know how many people felt they had a proper opportunity to tell their story, and have their arguments considered by the adjudicator.

The BC Government measures the success of the IRP scheme in terms of tax dollars saved on the cost of court, and in terms of the number of people who didn’t die this year (without discussing really why). But how is administrative justice measured by those who had to access it? Do these people think that this system is as successful as the BC Government believes it to be? Is the system effective for more reasons than saving money? Do the ends justify the means?

Below the link, you’ll find a survey. If you’ve been through the IRP process and you’ve been given a decision then I want to know how you felt your case was handled by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. Do you think you got a fair hearing? Do you think you had enough time to prepare? Do you think you had the right ways to challenge the evidence?

Police officers in British Columbia have significant obligations when they come across someone who appears to have committed an offence, but generally speaking they have broad discretion in how to proceed when it comes to traffic offences. When it comes to police discretion in issuing traffic tickets, it’s important to keep in mind that the officer giving you the ticket has a great deal of personal authority. Consequently, how you behave after the fact can have major consequences for the outcome of your case.

Right or wrong, the cop who pulls you over for a Motor Vehicle Act offence is likely to issue you a ticket. Imagine for a moment that your job is to be a traffic officer.

I recently wrote about entrapment and what counts as entrapment in traffic cases. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about entrapment as the Creep Catchers have bee present in several news stories.
 
It gets me wondering whether Creep Catchers cases may give rise to a defence of entrapment. I believe it might.
 
The theory behind entrapment is rooted in an abuse of process. Essentially, it is wrong for the state to coerce citizens into committing crimes, or to set out a plan by which they wind up committing an offence. As I described earlier, a morality test constitutes entrapment.
 
But where do groups like Creep Catchers fall on the issue?