We received a number of calls and emails Thursday about the blog post. We wrote about the 7-day period in which you could file for review and how that was designed to disadvantage people who received Immediate Roadside Prohibitions.
The main purpose of the post was to explain the historic reason for the 7-day period and to shed light on how this was simply unfair when it comes to IRPs. The feedback we received indicates to us that many people missed the 7-day period, or made the then entirely rational decision to not file for a review. As we have said, before November 30, 2011 when the Court rendered its first decision, we told people to file for a review even if they knew they would lose to preserve their right to a remedy in the future. It was a difficult decision for many people. It required a certain investment with knowledge that you would lose at first and then the eventual success was uncertain or may not come for months or years. So we sympathized with everyone who had to make that decision.
There has been some vindication for the people who disputed their 90-day IRP for Fail and lost. For those who did not dispute it, at this point they are hanging in the wind. The Government has given no indication of how they will try to deprive you of a remedy, but there are indications that this is the direction they are going.
The first being that they are not responding to people who made a formal request for an extension of the 7 days to file. Instead of doing their job, i.e rendering decisions that we can then appeal to get a remedy for our clients, they are simply refusing to render a decision. How fair is that?
If you have completed your 90 days and want to challenge your IRP due to it being unconstitutional, they have found a secret way to keep you from going to Court. By never rendering a decision, you can never appeal the decision. So once again, the Government is trying to get through the back door what they cannot get through the front.
What is most disturbing to most people is that the Government should be obliged to be fair. And this is the furthest thing from fair. We know that the Government pulls the strings, but this is ridiculous. The only reason that they have been able to get away with this is because people who received IRPs are not an organized lobby group.
Finally, a couple of people were dismayed because we used the term “interlocutory” in the post. We try to tell things as they are and we apologize for using legal jargon. We are lawyers, however, and sometimes we forget that words we use are not common words. In any event, it simply means a remedy while waiting for an ultimate decision on an issue from court. Usually, interlocutory relief is in the form of an order that restores the status quo for the purpose of limiting the damage a party may suffer. So issuing a driver’s license while the matter is before the Court and suspending the interlock and Responsible Drivers Program would be restoring the status quo.