13 supercars impounded in Surrey?

[freakshow]

We don't like the fact that certain people got away with dangerous speeding on public roads.

The witnesses didn't or couldn't give enough evidence to form a case against particular cars performing illegal acts.

We're happy the the Justice system has overturned a conviction that was based on incomplete evidence and prior records.

Can't we all just get along?

[SumAznGuy]

Originally Posted by freakshow

The witnesses didn't or couldn't give enough evidence to form a case against particular cars performing illegal acts.

We're happy the the Justice system has overturned a conviction that was based on incomplete evidence and prior records.

This is basically what the judge said. The police's "evidence" was just recanting what the witnesses told them. There was no video evidence, or skid marks to prove speed or any of the mentioned activities they were accused of performing.

As for Taylor's link, my guess is a) 2 witnesses who claim the 2 cars were speeding and were able to describe said vehicles
b) skid marks from one of the car that crashed due to speed
c) driver of the other car lied about driving the car because he had no drivers license.

This is the "due process" that many people have mentioned.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by Soundy

That doesn't mean that charges can't be laid and convictions can't be made based solely on witness statements... it just means that having video of the incident makes prosecution easier.

If one person says he saw something happen, that might be questionable.

If a dozen people say they saw the same thing happen... it SHOULDN'T require video, or police witnessing the event. The same applies whether it's a street race or a beating. Other people on the road may not be able to estimate speeds to within half-a-km/h, but unless they're all completely blind, I'm pretty sure they'd be able to tell whether someone on the street corner is getting a beating... and by the same token, be able to determine whether a bunch of really obvious cars are doing really obviously stupid things and going really obviously stupidly fast.

Do you even know what an "analogy" is?

That's not how the law works fortunately.

- There doesn't seem to have been specific information about offenses of specific vehicles. Just generalized complaints.
- Witnesses have to be summoned to provide testimony. Since these weren't criminal offenses and merely minor traffic offenses, I'd conjecture that no witnesses were being summoned. I wonder if you can even be summoned to traffic court to give testimony, or is this voluntary? I mean you'd have to be a serious loser to take time out of your day to go to court and give testimony so someone can get charged with speeding.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by freakshow

We don't like the fact that certain people got away with dangerous speeding on public roads.

The witnesses didn't or couldn't give enough evidence to form a case against particular cars performing illegal acts.

We're happy the the Justice system has overturned a conviction that was based on incomplete evidence and prior records.

Can't we all just get along?

This is only a partial victory for justice. What I find to be most shameful in this whole sorry saga is the Office of the Superintendant of Motor Vehicles in BC (OSMV) and the BC Civil Forfeiture office. Justice, in my opinion, will only be served when these offices are completely dismantled. The laws are written vaguely which gives OSMV the power to suspend driving licenses at their own discretion. The OSMV claims that they have associates who are trained in law who make a decision on whether a DL suspension is deserved or not. OSMV has their own arbitration process, which you have to pay for if you wish to dispute a suspension. If they don't rule in your favor, your final remedy is to take the dispute to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in BC stated unequivocally that based on the evidence (or the lack of), there was no justification for the charges OR a suspension of the driver's licenses of these individuals. This suggests that the OSMV and the Civil Forfeiture Office are at best incompetent or at worst prejudiced if they can't tell whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with charges. These offices were created to administrate the laws and principles of justice efficiently. Consequently, they should require the same burden of proof that any court of law would. The fact that they are being swayed by the populist opinions of the morons that unfortunately make up most of our citizenry clearly demonstrates to me an abuse of power by these offices.

[BaoTurbo]

The law has always been grey. That's why there are lawyers lol

[parm104]

New B.C. criminal forfeiture law aims to deter crime | CTV British Columbia News

The Criminal Asset Management Act, introduced in March, aims to deter criminals by giving the government full authority to manage or dispose of assets seized from criminal prosecutions and investigations.
The new law means prosecutors can pursue criminal forfeiture more frequently(cut comma) rather than relying on civil forfeiture, which has been criticized by the BC Civil Liberties Association because it doesn’t rely on criminal charges or convictions.
Some of the proceeds from criminal forfeitures will be used to compensate eligible victims and to help communities fund crime prevention and remediation projects. Profits will also go to the provincial government.


Read more: New B.C. criminal forfeiture law aims to deter crime | CTV British Columbia News


Keep in mind, this only applies once we prove that they people in question are guilty of a criminal act.