We got the sense that the Government hates lawyers. We came to this conclusion because of the crappy legal aid funding situation, legislation the Government introduced that prohibits people from being represented by a lawyer in some circumstances and utterances on BC Government websites designed to discourage people from hiring a lawyer to defend their IRP. When it comes to lawyers and the IRP scheme, we think that RoadsafetyBC (the office formerly known as the OSMV) intended, hoped and expected to undermine the authority of lawyers so it would be easier to reject drivers at their IRP appeal hearing.
They didn’t count on us.
Just as they failed to anticipate the number of innocent people who would be issued IRPs (and they still don’t understand it), the Government failed to anticipate the response from the legal community, and particularly our law office. Although some lawyers threw in the towel (which we think was a poor decision) others, including us, decided to bring challenges to the IRP scheme wherever possible. Our goal has been to explain why the IRP law is bad law and to seek out defences for our clients that would not only succeed at the hearing level, but would expose the problems with the legislation.
Challenges to the IRP scheme
We think some of the challenges to the IRP scheme would have had better traction if the facts and the argument at the hearing level would tend to expose the problems with the IRP law. So we have been careful to pick and choose the cases we take to court. Our strategy has been effective.
We’re at the point where we succeed in an IRP review hearing at least every business day. We scour the police reports to identify problems and we find cases where people are either innocent or the evidence doesn’t make the allegation. Often we find an entirely new argument.
The Government didn’t anticipate the response from lawyers who defend IRPs. IRP defence lawyers started to identify complex legal issues that threw a wrench in their plans. The attempt to undermine lawyers backfired in that it strengthened our resolve and the resolve of the community of people who have been issued IRPs.
Strength in strong legal arguments
Our strong legal arguments and the effect our work has had demonstrates clearly the necessity of lawyers in a complex legal process such as an IRP dispute. Lawyers are experts in the law and we have particular expertise in drinking and driving allegations. As a result, over and over we’ve identified problems in the evidence and the process that calls into question the validity of specific IRPs and the IRP scheme as a whole.
The Government is now aware that the complex legal issues brought forth by IRP defence lawyers has exposed some of the problems with their law. RoadsafetyBC (the same people who decided by decree that you were only permitted a maximum of 30 minutes to plead your case) is now having to heavily rely on advice from Legal Services Branch.
In other words, after the hearing is over RoadsafetyBC then contacts another office to get advice on how to decide the case. For all we know 15 people may have decided the case for the adjudicator before the decision is written (or cut and pasted from a template).
Blame the lawyers for improving the system
We believe that the IRP scheme was an attempt to undermine lawyers in the process of defending DUIs. The important thing is that all of the significant changes to the IRP scheme and the defences that have developed to challenge an IRP exist because lawyers got involved, defended IRPs and took on the IRP scheme.
When it comes to lawyers and the IRP scheme, the likelihood of success or failure at an IRP review hearing can often hinge on whether you have a lawyer and that lawyer can identify an issue that will succeed at the review hearing.
If, as we believe, there was an active attempt to undermine lawyers, it failed.
One of the biggest challenges to the IRP scheme is lawyers advancing complex legal issues. And so it should be. That is, after all, our role.
Follow us on Twitter:
If you want to keep in touch and know what’s going on with IRPs or other projects we’re working on, just follow us on twitter.
VanCrimLawyer is our office twitter account where we comment on legal issues, DUI defence and provide updates on IRP legal developments.
IRPlawyer is Kyla’s IRP twitter account where she comments on drinking and driving law, IRP developments, DUI defence and interesting DUI criminal cases with a focus on changes in DUI law in Canada and the US.