Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed
|
I do not think that is a relevant section of law. The relevant section of Law is the BC Civil Forfeiture Act. Note that unfair laws are written all the time and are struck down and repealed if higher courts decide that they are unjust. I shall argue that application of the civil forfeiture law to crimes of street racing and speeding is unjust. First, let's see what the law says:
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...de/00_05029_01
The director, who is an appointed public servant can make an application to the courts to seize an "instrument of unlawful activity"
I quote the relevant sections:
Quote:
"instrument of unlawful activity" means any of the following:
(a) property that has been used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn,
(i) resulted in or was likely to result in the acquisition of property or an interest in property, or
(ii) caused or was likely to cause serious bodily harm to a person;
(b) property that is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that may
(i) result in the acquisition of property or an interest in property, or
(ii) cause serious bodily harm to a person;
|
Clearly, the director is bringing about the case based on Subsection (a) ii. The law, however, is written broadly enough that the director can potentially seize ANY sports car he wants under section (b) ii - property that is LIKELY to be used to engage in unlawful activiity that MAY cause serious bodily harm to a person.
However, just because the director makes an application to the courts to seize your property, doesn't mean that the courts have to accept the director's forfeiture order.
Subsection 6(1):
Quote:
Relief from forfeiture
6 (1) If a court determines that the forfeiture of property or the whole or a portion of an interest in property under this Act is clearly not in the interests of justice, the court may do any of the following:
(a) refuse to issue a forfeiture order,
(b) limit the application of the forfeiture order;
(c) put conditions on the forfeiture order.
|
Therefore in determining if a forfeiture order is justified, the court has to decide on the rather nebulous term of whether it is "in the interests of justice." This suggests that they should take into account protection of civil rights and treatment of similar crimes in other provinces. What does the attorney general in New Brunswick think of enactment of a civil forfeiture law in his province?
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.co...article/993357
Quote:
Carr says it's important to make sure the act won't allow things to happen that were not intended.
"We need to protect ordinary people's civil rights," he says.
Lamrock says the new law will not let that happen because it has safeguards built in. For example, police can't simply seize items. It must also be proven in court that the item is being used for an ongoing criminal activity.
|
He goes on to say, " the law doesn't allow for seizure of every property where crime happens,
so drivers won't lose their cars for speeding. The Crown must prove the property is instrumental in an ongoing criminal activity.
Also, courts cannot approve a seizure where the property taken is disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Lamrock says the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that forfeiture laws within these parameters are consistent with the Charter."
And there you have it. Speeding, or street racing is not an "ongoing criminal activity" and seizing a vehicle is arguably disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime.
British Columbians, your civil rights have just been violated! This case sets a bad precedent and needs to be brought to the attention of the public at large.