Paul Doroshenko interviewed on CBC’s The Homestretch

The proposed plan to decriminalize drunk driving in Alberta is getting mixed reviews right now. The provincial government said to change the way drunk drivers are policed and prosecuted in Alberta. It’s sim liar to the system already in place in BC. Officers will be given the option of laying criminal charges, but for the most part first-time offenders will be given sanctions that include fines, roadside towing and licence suspensions.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving think this will be a good move for the court system and hopes the number of who drink and drive will decease, but not everyone is a fan of the proposed changes.
Paul Doroshenko is a defence lawyer specializing in drunk driving law in BC, and he joins us now for a closer look at what could be in store for Alberta.

 

---

 

CBC: What have you seen in BC since similar changes were made there?

Paul Doroshenko: Well we haven’t seen any decline in drinking and driving. The Immediate Roadside Prohibitions when they’re issued, we’ve seen roughly the same number every year between 11,000 and 13,000 every year that we’ve had the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme in place. Before that, police in BC were arresting about 7,500 people a year for criminal impaired driving. So we haven’t seen a decline in it.

The Government has claimed that it has led to a decline in deaths on the road but there was a 6 month period when the law wasn’t in place, when it was struck down because the law was found unconstitutional. And during that six month period we had the least number of deaths. So they cant really make the claim for that. But it has been a substantive change when it came to matters in court. Matters that are in provincial court, because we basically stopped charging people with impaired driving, we no longer have matters in provincial court tying up our courts with that particular type of charge.

So there is the plus and the minus there. It’s expensive to prosecute an impaired driving case. Certainly, it’s saving taxpayers money from that perspective, but it’s costing tax payers because we’re dealing with this at other levels now.

 

CBC: So why do you think then that these changes are the wrong way to go in Alberta?

Paul Doroshenko: They all arise as a result of a change the Harper Conservatives made in 2008. They changed what evidence you had to get in an impaired driving case and that’s led to all the delays in court. So in BC when they looked at it we basically concluded, the government concluded, they had no choice.

It was costing too much money, it was all about money. But the problem we’ve seen is people are not enthusiastic about being punished before they’ve even had a chance to have a hearing.

You know you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And when you get a hearing, you no longer get an opportunity to cross examine the police officer. You don’t get disclosure the way you do in a criminal case. The onus is on you now in BC to prove that you’re innocent. Not even that the police have to establish that it was lawfully issued to you, and they’re the ones that are the holders of the evidence.

There’s a lot of British Columbians very angry about the fact that this is a major degradation to their justice system, to their rights. When it comes to Charter rights for example you can’t get a remedy from our tribunal. You provide a sample and you blow a fail into a roadside breath tester, it doesn’t matter if they pulled you over because you’re black, it doesn’t matter if they made some racial slurs to you or something like that, you’re not going to get any remedy from the tribunal.

 

CBC: Some would argue, I mean if you blow over .08 or .05 depending on the jurisdiction, that the breathalyzer basically is showing you to be impaired, so what’s the argument against that other than innocent until proven guilty?

Listen to the full interview with Paul Doroshenko on CBC: