We have been unusually busy in our office for the last few weeks and consequently there have been fewer blog posts. Sorry about that. Thanks for sticking with us.
There have been a number of interesting developments concerning Immediate Roadside Prohibitions in the last week. First, about the interlock:
Interlock and “Remedial” Programs:
As expected the OSMV hasn’t responded to requests to reconsider the original automatic referral to the so-called remedial programs, i.e. interlock and Responsible Driver Program, for people who received 90-day IRPs. So today we are filing the first of a number of Petitions for mandamus orders to compel the OSMV to review each person’s driving record to determine if in fact the remedial programs can be justified. We’re ready to argue this before a judge at the soonest opportunity. Today we start the process in court.
Interesting is that we are receiving reports of people who got 90-day IRPs in December 2012 and who have received their licenses back without the interlock restriction and without having to go through the RDP. So it may be that the wheels are turning.
IRP Appeal:
The appeal of the court decisions concerning the legal validity of the first version of the IRP scheme is set to be heard next week in the BC Court of Appeal. The outcome is impossible to predict, as is the timeline. If the scheme is struck down it may be that the entire scheme falls, depending on the decision. Or the decision could have no impact going forward. Or there could be a ruling that none of us could predict.
If the law is struck down we know that the BC Government plans to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is no secret – you could guess this, but we overheard a conversation at the airport to this effect involving one of the key players. So it seems likely.
Globe and Mail articles on IRPs and ASD problems:
There were two articles published in the Globe and Mail this week concerning the IRP scheme and problems with roadside breath testing. Here are the links:
Breathalyzer machines used by police are error-prone, leading forensic scientist says
Review of driving suspensions adds to doubts about B.C.’s roadside program
The problems with relying on ASD type breathalyzers at the roadside is well known in the scientific community. It’s not a debate. The first scientific article on the subject was published in 1927. The problem is that the general public and politicians are completely in the dark on the issue and so the advocates for the scheme inside the Government have been able to control the direction of the discussion. But the public mood is turning, so this is likely to be an election issue.
The second of the two articles discusses the fact that most IRPs that were revoked in December 2012 were lifted due to faulty devices. But only a fraction of the people who received IRPs applied to appeal their IRP. Sad for those people because if the numbers hold true across the board, hundreds of them blew into faulty ASDs.
It breaks our hearts to know that people who could have succeeded had they appealed their IRP didn’t bother to do so.
Don’t let friends drink and drive. And don’t let friends make the wrong decision when it comes to appealing their IRP.