Weighing the Evidence: Scales of Justice

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The scales of justice weighed in favour of an Accused woman earlier this week, when the Ontario Superior Court upheld her acquittal of impaired driving related charges in Ontario.

Kimberly McLachlan was acquitted of impaired driving in August 2015 after she succeeded in having evidence inadmissible at Trial – her breathalyzer readings, to be specific. This is known as a Charter application, as it seeks to have evidence excluded based on a breach of a Charter protected right.

Her application was based on the fact that when she taken to the police detachment, where she was required to provide a breathalyzer sample, the arresting officers’ had her stand on a scale so that they could have an accurate record of her weight.

Unfortunately, their attempt to be thorough actually triggered a breach of Ms. McLachlan’s section 8 under the Charter – providing protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

It is not part of standard procedure that the police would weigh a person who has been arrested on suspicion of impaired driving. The Judge confirmed that weighing a person is a violation similar in nature to taking bodily fluids (such as a urine or blood) without a warrant.

It is nuances like this – something seemingly harmless – that will catch the attention of a skilled criminal lawyer. Circumstances like these demonstrate the necessity of hiring a criminal lawyer who is familiar with Charter protected rights.

Impaired driving is a particularly complex offence, with a variety of available defences that must be reviewed in tandem with your unique circumstances. Contact our office today for a consultation that will allow us to come familiar with your situation.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
PTSD: Post-Trial Struggles & Dysphoria Life after Judgement: Juror Edition

PTSD: Post-Trial Struggles & Dysphoria Life after Judgement: Juror Edition

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Dialogue surrounding mental illness echoes from the walls of nearly every courtroom across the country, which won’t come as a surprise to anyone. When dealing with an Accused person, both Crown and Defence will investigate what their client’s state of mind was like during the commission of the offence – it speaks to intent, which is a very important component in analyzing the intricacies of criminal behavior.

If Crown Counsel proceeds by way of Indictment (as opposed to summarily), the Accused will have the option of having their case heard by a Judge and Jury. If they so choose to have a Jury, members of the public will receive a summons to attend Jury Selection. Some will be chosen, and some will be dismissed. All who are chosen to sit on the jury will not have a say in what their role will be – they are bound by civic duty to fully participate.

Lengthy criminal trials are not uncommon – Robert Pickton’s Trial in 2007 lasted nearly a year, with lawyers calling 129 witnesses, and generating over 1.3 million documents. 129 individuals providing testimony, often gruesome and violent in nature, falling on the ears of 12 every day citizens, none of whom requested to put their lives on hold for a year. Jurors are required to view photo and video evidence, regardless of how brutal those images may be.

But, what happens to jurors once the Trial is over? One would assume that they gladly return to the nuisances of the life they had before the Trial. Sadly, however, many never return to their normal lives.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is often associated with mental illness – however, this is not a fact. PTSD is a psychiatric injury. After repetitive exposure to traumatic situations, the human psyche may succumb to the disturbance. This is rarely immediate – recurring nightmares or overwhelming thoughts are normal to a point. Fresh events remain fresh in our minds.

It is the fog, cotton-in-your-ears feeling, and anxiety that will indicate the onset of PTSD weeks or months after the trauma has occurred. It can be a very isolating and numbing experience – and for whatever reason, societal stigma or taboo, people tend to carry a lot of shame with their PTSD diagnosis. And it is no different for jurors like the ones who sat on Pickton’s jury.

After hearing weeks of testimony, a juror can feel a genuine, bona fide connection with the victim(s). This is amplified when the victim’s family and friends are present for the Trial. Huge internal conflict can erupt when a juror must balance their responsibility and duty to the Court with their own morals and values. This internal back-and-forth is another burden, on top of what they have seen and heard, that they will be left to deal with on their own when jury duty is over.

So what responsibility does our government have to jurors afflicted with PTSD as a result of their participation at Trial? It would not be absurd to consider them as victims of crime. As such, they should have access to every single resource that is made available to the victims of first instance.

Last month in Ontario, the provincial government began offering free counselling for juror members, available either at the end of the coroner’s inquest, or at the end of the Trial. Only time will tell how receptive jurors are to the program, which sadly, hangs on the willingness of individuals to fight against PTSD and its crippling side effects.


 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Mobile While Mobile!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

 

Distracted driving. It’s a hot topic these days – it seems that technology is steadily advancing, while our common sense refuses to evolve. It’s an issue that, in some ways, exploded overnight. Ever since our provincial government implemented the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme, the focus has been centered on impaired driving. As the number of drunk driving related fatalities (supposedly) continues to fall as a result of the IRP system (in fact our Government now says that distracted driving is the leading cause of death on roadways in BC), lawmakers have narrowed in on distracted driving – to be specific, reanalyzing the financial and disciplinary consequences of being caught while talking on an electronic device while driving. Brace yourselves: the pain train is coming.

If you’ve been using your phone while driving, trying to send that one last text, or fumbling with your playlist while going unnoticed, all the while scanning intersections for police cruisers…well, today’s the day you might want to quit. As of June 1, 2016, fines handed out by police have increased from $167 to $368. Further, a driver will now receive 4 penalty points instead of 3 – and 4 points is all that’s required for a $175 penalty towards your insurance. So basically, on your first offence, it’ll cost you $543. If you get caught a second time within 12 months, that penalty will cost you $888, and you risk losing your license for 90 days (click here to be redirected to the ICBC penalty point premium information page).

It’s important to remember that although nearly every article you’ll read about this topic will use the term distracted driving, the real offence that is being described is the use of an electronic device while driving. You are still safe to drink your coffee and eat your bagel (for now) (and please do so responsibly). Please remember that driving with your cellphone wedged between your shoulder and ear isn’t a legal loophole – it almost worked for this guy, but he lost on appeal). Also make sure to check out this post which touches on the hypocrisy of one of RoadSafety’s policies.

It’s also important to remember that the tickets handed out for this offence are not criminal charges, rather, they are issued under the Motor Vehicle Act. As of right now, these violation tickets are still heard before a Provincial Court Judge within the jurisdiction of issue. The offices of Tarnow & Company and Jason D. Tarnow Law Corporation are both well equip with criminal lawyers to handle the trials of these matters, in any jurisdiction of the lower mainland, including but not limited to Richmond, Vancouver, Surrey, New Westminster, etc.

If you receive a ticket for talking on your cellphone while driving, or any other section of the Motor Vehicle Act, contact our office within 30 days (time limit for dispute) of receiving the ticket for advice regarding the best course of action. We also handle appeals of driving prohibitions that come as a result of an unsatisfactory driving record.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Snoop Dogg Monologue

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

snooooooop

Hip hop star Snoop Dogg played a DJ set at Vancouver’s Fortune Sound club on Saturday, April 17, 2016. His travel into Canada, however, was met with resistance by officials at the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) – which isn’t anything new for Snoop. He frequently encounters complications when crossing international borders – to note, he was recently hassled by officials in Italy for carrying around $400,000 cash, and was banned from entering the UK in 2006, after he and his posse were denied from British Airways’ First Class Lounge. A brawl ensued, and ultimately, Snoop was permanently banned from entering the United Kingdom (and ever flying on British Airways again). Snoop has previously been arrested for other criminal offences with respect to firearms, assault, and narcotics.

It is presumed that Snoop was referred for secondary screening by CBSA as a consequence of his clear endorsement of cannabis. Cannabis is widely used across the US, and is legal in several states for medicinal and recreational purposes. It’s just as frequently accessed by Canadians, and we intend to catch up to our southern neighbors pretty soon (The Liberal government announced that Federal legislation to legalize and regulate marijuana will be making its way to Parliament in Spring 2017).

Understandingly, the rapper became enraged at what he observed when he cruised down a back alley in Vancouver’s Downtown East Side – a district riddled with intravenous drug users, disorder, etc. In his Instagram video (link here), Snoop vocalizes his disdain at how Canadian Border officials dealt with his entrance into the country. To sum it up, he basically shames the Canadian Government with respect to how its priorities are organized – clearly indicating that the prevalent opioid use in Vancouver’s DTES should be viewed as a much more serious issue than a little bit of weed.

Anyone with knowledge of the differences between marijuana and heroin knows which is the lesser of 2 evils – so it does seem contradictory that we not only condone the use of heroin on the DTSE, but seemingly encourage and accommodate it, too. Insite (which is located near where Snoop’s gig was) is a publicly funded program, and its main goal is harm reduction. The idea is that if we are able to monitor heroin use, we will be able to minimize the number of overdoses, and prevent individuals from sharing and disposing of syringes and other tools. As you might guess, the venture isn’t cheap.

The Court of public opinion on law enforcement priorities is harsh, swift, and unforgiving. Snoop’s Instagram rant has received hundreds of thousands of views, and his sentiments were shared by the majority of viewers. If you consider the amount of money that has been directed towards Insite, and the amount of money that is spent annually on investigating and prosecuting marijuana related offences, it’s easy to understand why people are so frustrated with our Government’s stance on cannabis policy. Hypocritical, controversial, and contradictory are the best 3 words to describe our Government’s prerogative on combatting one deadly drug, while ever-so-slowly recognizing the innocuous nature of another.

In any event, it’s fair to say that Snoop Dogg is tired of the chronic problems he encounters when travelling from one place to another – my guess is that he’ll continue to hash it out with border officials. The grass isn’t always greener on the other side, anyways.

In the decades that we have been practicing criminal law, we have rarely, if ever, seen a violent crime associated with simple marijuana possession or use. Violence is more frequently associated to drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. If you have found yourself in a situation that involves criminal charges related to any of the aforementioned, or any other area of criminal law, call our office at any time for a free consultation.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Mistaken belief of consent: drawing the line on sexual assault allegations

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

sexual assault

A man from Saanich, B.C., has learned that he will not face charges of sexual assault stemming from complaints received from 4 women.

The man was arrested and a criminal investigation was pursued by RCMP and several senior Crown prosecutors. Upon reviewing the available evidence, assessing the credibility of the complainants, and considering possible defences that could be raised by the Accused, Crown Counsel determined that there was not a substantial likelihood of conviction, and announced that no charges would be filed.

The charge assessment standard of Crown Counsel takes many factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to lay charges. With respect to sexual assault cases, there are many important elements to acknowledge – failure to do so can result in charges that are ultimately stayed, or receive an acquittal at Trial. The stakes are high both for the Accused and for the complainants.

On the part of the Accused, being formally charged with sexually related offences is much more than simply embarrassing: it can result in the loss of employment, the breakdown of relationships, and can destroy the Accused’s’ reputation in general – even before the case has gone to Court. Once charges have been laid, it seems that notion of “innocent until proven guilty” is thrown out the window. A stay of proceedings, or a trial that results in an acquittal, is met with rage and disgust from the public.

On the part of the complainants, it is well known that going to Trial is a stressful and potentially damaging experience. Testifying and being cross examined can be disturbing – recalling horrific memories is emotionally and mentally harmful. Since there is never a guarantee to the complainant that the Accused will be convicted, it seems logical that a well advised complainant would only want to go through such an ordeal if there was a substantial likelihood that the Accused would be convicted.

In this case, the Crown determined that there were a number of operable defences that could be raised by the Accused, including the honest, but mistaken belief of consent.

The identity of the Accused person will remain uncirculated by the media for privacy reasons.

The number of sexual assaults in Metro Vancouver, and in particular, Surrey, have increased exponentially over the past few months. Many of the attacks have taken place in broad daylight, in high traffic areas such as the Vancouver UBC campus. The brazen nature of the attacks is extremely concerning to authorities.

Individuals charged with these offences are encouraged not to proceed self-represented – this area of law is extremely complex, and the penalties are significant. Being convicted can result in mandatory jail time and requirement to register as a sex offender, and other serious lifelong consequences. If you have been charged with any sexually related offences in British Columbia or the Yukon Territory, don’t hesitate to contact David or Jason Tarnow for your free, confidential consultation. Aside from providing legal advice with respect to your criminal charges, our lawyers will be able to help (if it is your desire) refer you to programs and treatment options to address any underlying issues that may have led you to the situation you have found yourself in.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Big Brother: Proposed “Injectable” GPS tracking system draws criticism

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Apparently, the truth is stranger than fiction, even when it’s like something straight out of George Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four: injectable GPS tracking devices for notorious criminals.

That’s what Williams Lake City Council members voted on this week – unanimously. With a population of roughly 14,000 people, the community is now grappling with serious, unrelenting criminal activity. The Canadian Federal government keeps track of the statistics with respect to crime in municipalities across the country, sourced from Statistics Canada Crime Severity Index. While no one was surprised to see Williams Lake make the list (it has for many,many years) there was new concern this time around when the city was ranked at the top of the Index. Concern escalated when this past Monday, surveillance captured 2 males stealing another males bicycle at gun point in broad daylight. The brazen nature of the crime set alarm bells sounding.

It has been reported that out of the community of roughly 14,000 people. Between 20-100 of them are known to police as being prolific offenders – that is, individuals who are frequently at odds with the law. On paper, Williams Lake RCMP have 13 local residents on their prolific offender list, 7 of whom are currently behind bars. The rest are being closely monitored.

City Councillor Scott Nelson was quoted saying “For the privacy of few who don’t even believe in law, we need to use the technology to the benefit of the society as a whole,” when defending the Council’s unanimous vote for injectable GPS trackers. Indeed, having a GPS device located on an individual who is a high-risk to re-offend would probably result in peace of mind for a community ravaged by crime – but it comes at a high cost to a society that is increasingly leery of police presence.

As it stands, there is no legal authority for the use of injectable GPS tracking. GPS monitoring for other Canadian offenders is tightly regulated and requires judicial authorization. Civil liberties lawyers have responded to the Williams Lake City Council by advising that there is little to no likelihood that such a system would ever be found to be constitutional.

For now, Williams Lake will have to rely on good old fashioned police work and vigilant, community minded residents to do their part in keeping the small northern town safe.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail