DriveSmartBC - Review of IRP

[skidmark]

The most significant concern apparent to me with regard to the new Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) program in BC is that the police are seen to be the judge and jury at roadside. This has been the case since the creation of the roadside prohibition many years ago, the only thing that has changed is the size of the penalty. Few people seem to be aware that this action is subject to review both by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the courts.

There are three valid grounds for appeal of an IRP action: you did not operate or have can and control of the vehicle, your breath test did not register a warn or a fail and you either did not refuse or had a reasonable excuse for refusing to provide a breath sample. The Superintendent's adjudicator will not consider other reasons for review.

On application for review you will be provided with a copy of the police information that the adjudicator will consider. You may present your case either in writing or when permitted at an oral review. The decision will have one of three outcomes: the driving prohibition is revoked, the period of prohibition is changed or the prohibition is confirmed.

Fees and monetary penalties may be changed or refunded depending on the success of your review.

If you do not agree with the Superintendent's decision, you may apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a review. If you are successful here, the court will state the reasons that the decision is set aside and remit the matter to the Superintendent for a rehearing.

Reference Links

[Eff-1]

The most significant concern apparent to me with regard to the new Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) program in BC is that the police are seen to be the judge and jury at roadside. This has been the case since the creation of the roadside prohibition many years ago, the only thing that has changed is the size of the penalty.

As you've stated: Police are now (and have always been) judge and jury. But this is fundamentally a problem. The fact the size of the penalty is now larger only serves to make this arrangement more of a problem than it was before.

You haven't mentioned other points that are also always (coincidentally?) left out of the government press releases:

- Reviews cost $100 for written, $200 for oral, and that's not refundable regardless of the outcome.

- The IRP is effective immediately. Your review may not take place for 21 days. You've already served your penalty by the time your file is considered. How is that useful?

[sebberry]

I think it is generally accepted by the public that 24 hour ADPs are good for keeping intoxicated drivers off the road until they have sobered up. The police do have a duty to protect the public, and I think this is a reasonable way to do so.

However, it does not take three days and what could amount to thousands in fines and fees to sober up from a few drinks. A few hours perhaps, yes.

You may be able to claim back your expenses, however you cannot claim back the time you spent without your vehicle.

Let's also not forget that the impoundment for blowing a warn (and also the impoundment for excessive speed) is issued upon being charged, not convicted of an offence.