We have strong connections to Alberta so we’ve been closely watching the developments in the legal challenge to the Alberta DUI law that came into effect last year. The anniversary of the law is now less than a week away. The challenge to the law is now before the courts. We’re ready to make a bold (perhaps foolish) prediction of the outcome.
In a blog post from the time, we explained the effects of the new law and why we feel that it is a clear violation of the presumption of innocence. Reading it again today we think that our post properly identifies the issue that the court must address and the decision that will follow.
The law imposes an immediate driving prohibition on anyone charged with a drinking-driving offence, i.e. impaired driving, refusal to blow to an ASD or approved breathalyzer, blowing over .08, etc. The prohibition remains in effect until the matter is resolved in court either by a trial or guilty plea. Because the punishment starts before the trial, the person is treated as though they are guilty. It’s also, in essence, a bail condition imposed by legislation that cannot be either justified as reasonable or made lawfully because the Alberta government doesn’t have the legal authority to enact criminal laws.
The thing about people from Alberta is that they are quick to stand up to defend their legal rights. Self-styled intellectual types in BC are quick to criticize Alberta for reasons that are usually based on prejudice. It may be true that many Albertans are more supportive of harsher punishment for criminal behaviour. However, it is also true that many Albertans keep a skeptical eye on the police and governments. And just as they won’t accept criminal behaviour, they won’t accept their government behaving badly.
Case in point, recently the police in Alberta proposed a vehicle seizure scheme like we have in BC for people who are accused of excessive speeding. This is another of those schemes that seem to appeal to high-ranking police officers. It empowers the police to punish people on the spot on the basis of an allegation. Thankfully, despite pressure by the police, the Alberta government says that they are not considering such a scheme.
In this case the Alberta government is refusing to succumb to pressure by the police to give them more power. Our thinking is that the government knows its constituents. And given what’s going to happen to their DUI laws, they may want to think twice about enacting more laws that give the police the power to punish people.
The Alberta DUI law appeal cases
Four courageous people (each one a hero) decided to stand up and challenge the law. In each case the person was charged with a criminal DUI and they were prohibited from driving on the spot until the matters made it to trial months later. In each case they brought a separate court challenge in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (the same level of court as the BC Supreme Court) to challenge the immediate driving prohibition.
The criminal cases are separate actions, but the results speak loudly of the dangers of giving the power of punishment to the police. Of the four cases, three have resulted in acquittals. These people who are and always were innocent, were treated as though they were guilty. These acquittals are proof that the Alberta DUI law punishes the innocent.
The fourth person has a trial set for later in the summer. But the outcome of that case doesn’t really matter for the legal challenge. The important thing is everyone can now see that it is wrong to give the police the power to punish people.
Our prediction on the Alberta DUI appeal
Our vast prejudicial generalization about Albertans is that they are courageous defenders of their legal rights. And they won’t put up with any horse shit. And so we think that the Court of Queen’s Bench will find that the law violates the presumption of innocent and it will strike it down. We don’t think they’ll be any wish-washy BC-style equivocating.
You may have noted that we have made no prediction about the IRP appeal in BC. We seem to be more deferential to the government in BC – we seem to believe their propoganda without any real scrutiny, accept the police as judge and jury and we stand by while the government stifles the voices of those who oppose them.
Things are different in Alberta. We think the Alberta court will find a clear violation of the Charter of Rights and strike down the law. We also think that the decision will read much like the blog post that we wrote last year.