B.C. moves to eliminate court trials for traffic violations

[BoostedBB6]

Uh oh.....

The B.C. government is shifting traffic violations out of court in a move lawyers fear strips motorists of constitutional rights.

The Liberals are implementing amendments passed with no fanfare in 2012 to establish a new process for handling offences under the Motor Vehicle Act, similar to the paradigm shift made dealing with drunk drivers in 2010 when most impaired charges and trials were eliminated with a heavy-handed Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) regime.

The Ministry of Justice and Public Safety confirmed Tuesday that a two-stage rollout is planned to shift MVA violations from the criminal system.

Work is underway on Phase 1, it said, bringing in an electronic ticketing and online payment system; the new hearing system will follow.

Though the implementation date has not been set, the ministry maintained in an email that the Road Safety Initiative to transfer traffic disputes out of court “will create system efficiencies and make processes more accessible for citizens.”

“E-ticketing, coupled with a faster dispute resolution process, will mean that driver infractions will be recorded against driving records more quickly, thereby enabling interventions for high-risk drivers to be applied in a more timely manner,” the ministry stated.

However, lawyers who opposed the IRP scheme say this new plan is similarly offensive.

“It’s a frightening piece of legislation,” warned Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee.

The IRP legislation is being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada because it is a novel use of administrative law to address a criminal problem, which makes it easier for police, less expensive for government and dramatically increases fine revenue.

Aside from the concern of the province encroaching on the federal government’s criminal law-making responsibilities, the key change is that constitutional guarantees and defences available in a criminal prosecution are unavailable in an administrative context.

Under the amended law, police will stop writing “tickets” and electronically issue what are called “driving notices.”

“If you have a B.C. driver’s licence or have ever held a B.C. driver’s licence, you get a driving notice and are handled under the new scheme,” Lee said.

“If you are visiting from Alberta on vacation, you still get a traffic ticket, you get the right to have the usual court system.”

That’s one reason it’s unconstitutional, she believes, but adds the dispute and appeal process is similarly problematic.

Under the proposed plan, disputing a notice is a three-part process.

Initially, adjudication officers with the superintendent of motor vehicles provide an opportunity for drivers to plead guilty.

“They can offer you incentives to plead guilty, a fine reduction or giving you time to pay,” Lee explained. “It’s designed at the first instance to goad people into pleading guilty by giving them an incentive to do so. If you don’t do that, then you get to go to a hearing before the Driving Notice Review Board. That can be in any manner: it can be oral, it can be written, it can be in person, it can be in some kind of electronic form, or some combination of those.”



Read more: B.C. moves to eliminate court trials for traffic violations

[smoothie.]

Can't wait to get bent over in private

[melloman]

You forgot page 2 bro..

Before you have your hearing, though, Lee added, there is a pre-hearing where the accused must provide evidence.

“Now you don’t have a right to keep your defence a secret and have your witness come and have them testify that ‘he wasn’t speeding, I was in the car with him,’” Lee said. “You have to disclose all of your witnesses and your witness statements to the Crown.”

The police officer must submit his or her evidence by way of a sworn report, but if the officer who issued the driving notice can’t do it, any other officer can.

“Reading the legislation, the officer who issued the ticket isn’t even required to provide evidence other than the ticket itself,” Lee said.

“It’s insane. The decision of the board in the legislation is final — you cannot appeal the decision of the board to any court and you can’t seek judicial review.”

Although traffic tickets are misdemeanours, Lee insisted the consequences can be large, ranging from significant financial penalties and lengthy driving prohibitions to the forfeiture of a vehicle.

What the government is doing is trying to eliminate the ability of people to defend themselves, Lee maintained.

She said she and her colleagues are waiting for the new scheme to be implemented to launch a constitutional challenge:

“I think the government is trying to lull people into a false sense of security, where they feel that these changes are for the good of the public, but it appears to be for the good of government coffers.”

See bold part...

[Traum]

Based on the Vancouver Sun news article, I am quite optimistic that the proposed legislation will not stand in a constitutional challenge. But the incident itself highlights how fxxking pathetic our provincial government is in attempting to stuff a quick one up our a$$es.

In this case, I am still relatively confident that we will not be screwed.

[Yodamaster]

Someone give me a gun.

Because apparently I'm guilty until proven innocent.

[The_AK]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

Someone give me a gun.

Because apparently I'm guilty until proven innocent.

My thoughts exactly

[CCA-Dave]

Yeah, this is NOT good...

[z3german]

[Timpo]

Why are they doing this?
For public safety or to make more money?

[Timpo]

Well guess what, in this economy everyone is suffering, I'm sure the BC Government is trying to turn cops into tax collectors.

People said it was bad enough for cops being able to impound your car for excessive speeding without you being proven guilty at court, and now this..

[van_city23]

Changes to traffic dispute process in B.C. under way - British Columbia - CBC News

The British Columbia government is moving ahead with its plan to shift traffic violation disputes out of the clogged court system.

The change was first announced in 2012 as a way to speed up traffic dispute resolutions and to "create system efficiencies and make processes more accessible for citizens," according to a statement from the ministry of justice.

Instead of receiving a ticket, drivers will be handed an electronic driving notice. Then instead of having the option of challenging the violation in court, a driver would appear before a new driver notice review board.

No more paper tickets

"E-ticketing, coupled with a faster dispute resolution process, will mean that driver infractions will be recorded against driving records more quickly, thereby enabling interventions for high-risk drivers to be applied in a more timely manner," according to the ministry.

About 14 per cent of the 500,000 tickets issued each year in B.C. are disputed and the government says the new dispute system will save $8 to $11 million per year by freeing up court resources for other work.

However, lawyer Kyla Lee says allowing a review board to handle traffic disputes is problematic because it "takes away all of the things that, as Canadians, we expect from our court."

"You have police officers who are entitled to detain you, they're entitled to handcuff you if necessary and when they turn on their lights behind you, you are required by law to stop your vehicle and present your licence," Lee told The Early Edition's Rick Cluff.

Concerns over lack of due process

"So there's a huge exercise of power over citizens and we need courts to keep a check and balance on that power."

Lee says disputing a driving notice under the new system will involve a three-part process. If the driver maintains innocence, they are obligated to provide evidence during a pre-hearing. After that, they will attend an actual hearing.

Police must submit a sworn report as evidence, but if the officer who issued the driving notice can't do it, another officer can, Lee said.

"At the end of the day, the review board is going to determine how the hearing is going to take place, whether you get to cross examine the officer, whether the officer has to come, what evidence you can present — all of that is determined by the tribunal," she said.

"You don't have the power to mount your own defence in the way that you want to."

The province says the planning and development of the electronic ticketing system is already underway. The new system for resolving traffic disputes out of court will follow at a later date.

this seems like some arbitrary bullshit

[geeknerd]

another officer can

WTF LOL? does that mean what I think it means? any officer can give a sworn report as evidence against you and fight you in court regardless of his involvement in the pull-over/ticketing?

Sure it will weed out quite a few court system abusers but if they're going to digitalize the ticketing and disputing process, they should really figure out a way to store video and readings with the ticketing process and require the police to submit the evidence first. Nah, too risky and costly (loss of ticketing revenue) for popo/government. Guilty until proven innocent for MVA stuff.

More the reason to get dashcams eventhough icbc is against it. In reality, they should offer discount for dashcam users. smh

Driving is a complex task that requires our full attention," said an ICBC spokesperson in an emailed reply to the Province. "While it is not illegal to have a mounted camera in a vehicle...we don't encourage the use of any electronic devices while driving because there is always the potential for it to be a distraction."

Maybe the 8-11$million saved can be used for police dash and bodycams

[SpuGen]

Merged threads.

[nsx042003]

When and if this passes, what happens to disputes in process that didn't get a court date yet?

[Soundy]

Well, congratulations, everyone who disputed a righteous VT in hopes that the cop wouldn't show... or to give you time to get your Class 5 first. This the natural escalation to your constant clogging of the courts.

[Nabatron]

So pretty much everyone is fucked! Going to pray every time you drive your vehicle not to get in an accident or any traffic violation...going to have to be careful as fuck!

[CCA-Dave]

Here's what I want to know...the CBC article states 14% of traffic tickets are disputed. Of those 14%, I want to know the following:

- % that are plead down to a lower charge, fine and/or penalty?
- % of disputes that are won by the accused (charge is thrown out)?
- % of disputes that are won by default due to the officer not showing up?
- % of disputes which are lost by the accused?

ie: how much "clogging of the system" is really happening by people who don't have a legitimate reason for going. I've challenged my fair share of tickets, and I've never NOT had an officer show up. That's a terrible reason for going to traffic court.

...which, for the record, isn't actually "court". You aren't seeing a judge, just a justice of the peace. Challenge a violation of your charter rights...now THERE is real court.

[twitchyzero]

the local justice system prevails again
this won't really affect me because ive yet to be pulled over but if it does get passed along with other BS laws/taxes it just further proves our gov't is FUBAR'd...Liberals or not. News like this just makes me wanna get out of here while I still can.

[Nabatron]

^say for instance they do pull u over for some sort of "violation" and you know u didn't do anything wrong well looks like your fucked! Just shows you how the government can fuck its people over by anyway they can!

[nsx042003]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

the local justice system prevails again
this won't really affect me because ive yet to be pulled over but if it does get passed along with other BS laws/taxes it just further proves our gov't is FUBAR'd...Liberals or not. News like this just makes me wanna get out of here while I still can.

But to where will you go? Most if not all governmentsare like this

[Timpo]

Originally Posted by geeknerd

More the reason to get dashcams eventhough icbc is against it. In reality, they should offer discount for dashcam users. smh

why is ICBC against dashcams?

[Timpo]

ok so when exactly is this whole thing going to become in effect?

[Tone Loc]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Well, congratulations, everyone who disputed a righteous VT in hopes that the cop wouldn't show... or to give you time to get your Class 5 first. This the natural escalation to your constant clogging of the courts.

So, because of a small minority of idiots, and IMO there will always be idiots who try to game ANY system, everyone else deserves to get pretty much all of Act 11 of the Charter revoked with respect to their own offences, "righteous" or not. Makes sense to me...

As much as it sucks, you can't legislate stupid. Personally, I think the recent court case where some idiot cyclist's - and equally stupid - family is suing everyone involved because their wife/mother was too inept to properly follow the rules of sharing a bike path is fucking stupid. However, it's a by-product of a justice system that ultimately protects everyone apart from a statistically small percentage of outliers.

[meme405]

Originally Posted by FunkyColdMedina

So, because of a small minority of idiots, and IMO there will always be idiots who try to game ANY system, everyone else deserves to get pretty much all of Act 11 of the Charter revoked with respect to their own offences, "righteous" or not. Makes sense to me...

As much as it sucks, you can't legislate stupid. Personally, I think the recent court case where some idiot cyclist's - and equally stupid - family is suing everyone involved because their wife/mother was too inept to properly follow the rules of sharing a bike path is fucking stupid. However, it's a by-product of a justice system that ultimately protects everyone apart from a statistically small percentage of outliers.

It's a little bit more than that. I remember this stupid article going around about a year ago:

An ex-police Sergent tells how and why you should fight ALL speeding fines | The Free Thought Project

It was posted everywhere. That was just the first site I found it at again.

Basically there was a mass movement to overload the system, so that the police would have to "stop writing stupid tickets", or whatever the ridiculous end goal was.

Now everyone who shared that article, or followed that advice, can enjoy having their rights raped by the government.

For the record I am not disagreeing with you about this, it is entirely unfair to take away this current system. I just think that your idea that this problem was caused by a "minority" is wrong. There was a fundamental misuse of the system, one that ultimately ruined it for everyone.

The lesson here is, you can only poke and prod the bear so many times before it turns around and rips your head off. Consider yourselves all decapitated now...

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by meme405

For the record I am not disagreeing with you about this, it is entirely unfair to take away this current system. I just think that your idea that this problem was caused by a "minority" is wrong. There was a fundamental misuse of the system, one that ultimately ruined it for everyone.

And for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you about any of this. I don't see this as a good move either, but I don't see it as being something completely arbitrary, nor a simple outright cash grab. It's largely a response to, as you put it, a fundamental misuse of the system that's supposed to be there to protect the innocent, not to be misused by the guilty to skirt their offences.