IRP defences – we know they exist
The Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme was designed so there would be no defences to an IRP. That should come as no surprise. The Government didn’t write the law with fairness as a priority. It came infused with blind faith in the police. And even with several dozen court decisions making clear that they need to be fair, they continue to take the position that it’s okay for innocent people to end up stuck with IRPs because, in their view, the ends justify the means. Still, confronted with the simple fact that innocent people do receive IRPs and punishing innocent people embarrasses the government, IRP defences began to be accepted.
Cold comfort to people who received their IRP a few years back, but there are now some IRP defences. And we know them.
In fact, we know the IRP defences very well because we discovered/identified/created so many of them.
Helping drunk drivers drive drunk
Would you like to know the IRP defences? You might have noted that we don’t detail the defences to IRPs here on our blog. There are very good reasons for that. Firstly, we don’t want to encourage drivers to attempt to utilize them roadside. We’re not here to help drunk drivers drive drunk. Yes, we wrote about how to beat the breathalyzer. However, as we explained, the breath results, although lower, may be more accurate if you follow the steps described in that blog post.
You can drink and drive so long as you’re not affected in your ability to drive by alcohol and you’re under .05%. If the breathalyzer says you’re over, it certainly doesn’t mean that you’re over or that you’re guilty. Still, we don’t encourage people to take chances or push the limit. So we don’t publish the IRP defences because we don’t want to inadvertently encourage anyone to drive drunk.
Protecting the integrity of legitimate defences
Secondly, we don’t tell people the IRP defences because we don’t want drivers to try and tailor their evidence to beat their IRP. For example, when the IRP scheme came out there were many news stories on how any mouthwash containing alcohol (most do) will cause inaccurate readings if residual alcohol from the mouthwash is still in the mouth at the time of testing. At the time inside sources told us that so many people were running this defence that it was notorious and impossible to discern who was telling the truth. As a result, almost nobody was believed.
Of course, some innocent mouthwash users probably ended up with an unjust IRP. The Government’s position would probably be that it’s okay that some innocent people get an IRP because the ends justify the means.
We’re not here to help the police
Many police officers read our blog regularly (Hi guys!) and in fact some have told us that it’s essential reading. For the vast majority of police officers, who are decent people trying to do their best, there is little threat to revealing defences. A handful, however, customize their evidence – tailor it in the circumstances, to account for legitimate defences. Essentially, some police officers put in dishonest or greatly misleading evidence to try to account for defences that they are aware of because they want to see an IRP upheld. So again, we don’t report the IRP defences because we don’t want the police to tailor their evidence.
As well, we don’t want to educate the police. For example, we knew of certain defects in evidence that were repeated in each IRP from specific detachments. If we reported it, the police would just fix it. As it stands, the RoadSafetyBC tribunal should be at arms length from the police. If they’re feeding information to the police, if could impeach the claim of impartiality. And review decisions do not contain discernable reasons for an IRP to be revoked. So any such flaw can theoretically continue for some time and we wish that advantage to be used for the advantage of our clients.
We’ve seen this on two occasions. On one occasion, we went to the media because our concerns about bad police procedure. The second time we kept it quiet to see how long it would continue (and how many more IRP reviews we’d succeed on) before someone whispered to the police that they were screwing up.
Our IRP defences are also trade secrets. Other lawyers have called us and asked us to teach their staff how to defend IRPs. We’re not doing it. We help other lawyers in particular cases. We succeed in more IRP appeals than any other law office. If you phoned Colonel Sanders and asked him his recipe for chicken because you wanted to set up a fried chicken restaurant down the street, would you expect him to give it to you? No way. We’ll help anyone with a specific IRP, but we don’t want to send our recipe for success out to the world. We work hard to create and identify new IRP defences. Our intellectual work is our property. We use it to try and help our clients.
The biggest concern about revealing IRP defences
Our biggest concern about revealing the IRP defences that we succeed with is that others will try to run the defences and not succeed. Most people don’t know when a specific defence should or could apply to their case. If we publish the IRP defences, we know people will try on their own to identify the defence in their case and defend themselves at their IRP hearing. Failure is the likely result.
We have a massive library of successful decisions and unsuccessful ones too. The feedback in those cases teaches us what to do in the next similar case that comes around. We might wait for months before a similar defence arises, but if we published it, invariably people would start looking for that defence in their own case when it probably wouldn’t apply.
In other words, we don’t reveal the IRP defences because we don’t want people to lose by conducting their hearing based on our blog. No matter how much you try to inform yourself, you won’t know what we know about IRPs, breathalyzers and drunk driving defences.
IRP defences – we know they exist
In the beginning it seemed that there were no IRP defences. We started to identify them. We took a proactive attitude – seeking them out. After a few early sightings, we confirmed the existence of the elusive IRP defences.
Now, following an exhaustive search, we can confirm the existence of IRP defences. We succeed in many IRP reviews. Still, we don’t want to reveal the actual defences. RoadSafetyBC omits the facts and discernible defences from the successful review decisions and doesn’t publish the review decisions in any event. We don’t lay bare the IRP defences because it would not assist our clients.
We’re always cooking up new IRP defences
If you want to be our client, or you know someone who has just received an IRP, our contact information is a click away. We’re on a zealous quest looking for the right recipe of IRP defences for each client in their particular case. Often we find it.