Blog

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?

As a criminal lawyer who deals with driving issues, I get a lot of calls from clients who feel that they are victims of police entrapment. Many people seem to have a misconception, which I believe is informed by American television, about the concept of entrapment. The understanding appears to be that entrapment exists where the police provide an opportunity to commit a crime. But the actual law on entrapment is not that simple.

In this blog post I am going to try to explain the issues that arise in entrapment cases, and why common driving issues called “entrapment” are not, in fact, entrapment.

Like most sensible people living in the Lower Mainland I have a dream of owning a house. A dream that I know is probably an impossibility. It is no secret that the real estate market in the Lower Mainland is out of control. People across the province have been calling on the Government to do something about it. Even Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson told the Government that if they don’t start taxing vacant homes, he will.

And so the Government came up with a brilliant response. I say that dripping with sarcasm. Their idea: end self-regulation of realtors.

I’ve written before about the process of appealing an unsuccessful Immediate Roadside Prohibition review decision. I conduct countless judicial review hearings in BC Supreme Court, and file innumerable Petitions to the Court. The majority of my appeal cases are resolved without having to make arguments in court, and in favour of my clients.
 
While plenty of the cases I take to court deal with routine issues, such as how an adjudicator resolves a credibility issue or their interpretation of the evidence there are a significant number of judicial reviews that I advance that deal with far more significant issues.
 
You may have read my recent post about my success rate in these types of cases. Part of the reason I won so many hearings in summer 2015 related to finding certain pieces of evidence that called into question numerous breathalyser calibration certificates. In order to respond to this, the police amended a standard form that was submitted for every hearing with declarative information indicating that what they said was correct.

What happened next was very interesting.

As mentioned in two previous posts, there have been significant issues with delay in deciding Immediate Roadside Prohibition review cases.
 
This has resulted in substantial problems for drivers who are affected by the delay, as the prohibition remains on the driving record during this time. The drivers have been made to pay the towing and storage costs, and there are consequences that are specific to many individuals like increased life insurance premiums or termination from employment.
 
So what is the Government doing to address the problem?

Today, the BC Court of Appeal released its ruling in Jaswal v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles). This case was the appeal of whether drivers who were issued an Immediate Roadside Prohibition that was unconstitutional are entitled to have the IRP removed from their driving record, and to have their fines and penalties reimbursed.

The Court has upheld Justice Sigurdson’s initial ruling that despite the fact that the IRP law was unconstitutional from September 2010 to November 2011, there will be no remedy for those affected by it. Many drivers are out thousands of dollars, have lost their employment, and have their driving records permanently marred by an unconstitutional law that continues to affect them to this day. The judge found — and the Court of Appeal confirmed — that the ruling represented a substantial change in the law and did not entitle drivers to a remedy.

Last week, the Provincial Government announced changes to the distracted driving laws in British Columbia. Essentially, they are increasing the fine amounts and adding penalty points so that each distracted driving ticket will automatically attract Driver Penalty Point Premiums and become a significant expense to drivers.
 
I had the opportunity to poll a number of police officers from the Lower Mainland last week about their views on the fine increase. Many of them were not for it, indicating their lack of enthusiasm at giving such a hefty financial hit to drivers who are clearly not able to pay the fine. This, in turn, will lead to the loss of licenses and insurance and a greater financial burden on the drivers who are unable to pay. I can’t help but agree with them.
 
However, I also see this as part of a long game, played by Government, to further their objective of eliminating traffic court.

One of the biggest concerns that the public has when it comes to impaired driving is the problem with repeat or chronic offenders. You probably remember the story of the Victoria woman with 19 drunk driving prohibitions, who was recently found guilty of another offence related to impaired driving. The public was, rightly, outraged that this person can still drive and is still driving drunk.

The Government, for its part, has touted the success of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition legislation as the mechanism to reduce the carnage caused by impaired drivers on the road. It frequently points to the reduction in drunk driving deaths as evidence of the success of their anti-drunk driving legislation. But what they’ve been keeping mum about since the introduction of the scheme is whether there is any reduction in repeat offenders for impaired driving.

In short, do the swift and severe sanctions prevent people from making the same mistake twice? The answer might surprise you.

This past week, the Middelaer family is again in the news. Not only were the announcements made about the winners of the Alexa’s Team Awards – a foolish way to encourage sloppy policing – but Alexa’s Bus was processing impaired drivers over the weekend. Or so the Government would have you believe.

If the British Columbia government spent $300,000 on a Skytrain line that was never used by passengers, citizens would be up in arms about irresponsible government spending. If they fundraised the $300,000 for the Skytrain, and then paid taxpayer money to staff it, maintain it, and ensure that it was functional and operational, the public would be furious.

The same situation exists for Alexa’s Bus.