We know that many of our clients have felt first hand how unfair the IRP scheme was. What is perhaps surprising is that people not directly affected are nevertheless concerned about the lack of due process and oversight of the police.
Looking at the comments section of every news story, it’s clear that most people viewed this legislation as a cynical attempt to get around providing people with their rights or a legitimate review of the evidence.
It’s been interesting to read the comments. It’s good to see that so many people are so thoughtful and engaged.
We were also surprised that the Government was so easily willing and enthusiastic about stripping people of their rights. Government are made up of individuals. In this case, those individuals crafted a law knowing that certain trickery was required to pass it off as something it wasn’t. One is forced to wonder how these individuals could feel that this was appropriate. How is it that nobody spoke up against it? Why would they feel that violating Charter rights would be okay if they can get away with it? Did they not see that ultimately their own liberty would be imperiled by the law?
There have been some excellent editorials:
Canada.com Allowing the current tough drinking-and-driving laws to continue would create a slippery slope. It leaves the door open for other offences to be dealt with in the same way, without following due process.
Vancouver Sun Most of the safeguards were eliminated under the new regime. Accused people are subject only to the roadside breathalyzer, and then, astonishingly, they can’t challenge its findings. Indeed, the only things an adjudicator can consider are whether the accused was a “driver” and whether the instrument recorded a “fail” — but not whether the breathalyzer was working properly, or whether the police officer had grounds to demand a breath sample in the first place.
This, in effect, amounts to a review without a review. In light of the lack of reviewability, Sigurdson found the law amounted to an unreasonable search that could not be justified. And the reason it could not be justified is because the government could very easily provide for a proper review procedure.
Victoria Times Colonist The decision should not surprise the government. Earlier this year, another B.C. Supreme Court decision noted the appeal process was “fundamentally at odds with basic concepts of fairness and impartiality.” The deck was stacked against people seeking a fair hearing.
The new approach was introduced in large part to save money by diverting impaired cases from the courts to a cheaper, faster – and less fair – system.