Basic Info: Brushing up

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

                     It is commonplace that first-time offenders rarely have a good understanding of the judicial process. Although it would be fantastic if everyone was fully apprised of their rights and obligations under Canadian law, it is unrealistic. However, I hope that this post will answer a few very common questions we receive on a daily basis.

Lets get started.

Q –     I’m looking at my Court documents, and it appears that I am being charged by someone named Regina. Who is she? I don’t even know anyone by that name?

A –     Regina is the latin word for Queen. As Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning Monarch,  Regina is the term used in legal context. When a male takes the throne, the term will change to Rex, the latin word for King.

Q –     My wife and I got into a really heated argument and the police were called. I was arrested and charged with assault, and now there is a no-contact order between us. My wife and I met for dinner last night to talk things over, and we agreed that it was silly to call the police. She would like to drop the charges, how can she do this?

A –      In British Columbia, individuals do not press charges, and neither do the police. The police investigate, prepare a report, and recommend charges to Crown Counsel. Crown Counsel then reviews the information and approves or denies charges based on the strength of the evidence. There must be a reasonable likelihood of conviction to pursue prosecution. In short, your wife cannot “drop the charges”. Additionally, since there is a no contact order in place, you cannot contact your wife, directly or indirectly, until the order is lifted. Ignoring the no  contact order could result in a Breach charge, landing you in jail.

Q –     I’ve been charged with an Indictable Offence. Is that a misdemeanor?

A –      The terms “misdemeanor” and “felony” are not rooted in Canada. Those terms are used in the United States. An indictable offence is very serious and carries significantly higher penalties than the less serious “summary offence”. One major difference is that summary offences can only be tried in Provincial Court by a Judge, whereas indictable offences can be tried in Supreme Court by a Judge an Jury. There are also “hybrid offences” which can be prosecuted by summary or indictment – impaired driving is one example. The choice to proceed by indictment is usually because of aggravating circumstances such as a car accident resulting in injuries.

Q –     I was arrested for impaired driving and given a Promise to Appear (“PTA”). Several weeks later, I was contacted by the police who told me that the PTA has been cancelled. Does this mean my charges are dropped?

A –      In short: no. Your PTA was likely cancelled because the police and Crown Counsel  are still in the early stages of their investigation. Once an Accused person has  attended their First Appearance, the judicial-delay clock starts ticking. The Supreme Court of Canada recently advised that proceedings in Provincial Court should run from start to finish in no more than 18 months – this means that you   must be charged, and proceed to trial within 18 months. If the proceedings take   longer than 18 months to be heard, there is probability for the case to be thrown   out due to delay. In Superior courts, the proceedings should be completed within 30 months. So, while your PTA has been cancelled, it does not in any way mean  that you are off the hook. There is no statute in Canada that prohibits the commencement of prosecution of criminal offences. In the United States, there is no statute of limitations on murder, but there is on sexual assaults and other serious criminal offences.

Hopefully the above information has answered a few of your questions, but likely not all of them. Of course, there are many complex questions that deserve a much more thorough explanation, and we are here ready to answer them.

Whether you have been charged with a minor offence under the Criminal Code such as theft under $5,000, assault, mischief under $5,000 or a more serious offence such as aggravated assault, sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, or murder, it is crucial that you speak to one of our lawyers prior to making any statements to the police (which we will advise you not to do in any event), or anyone else for that matter. Because, although you’ll hear it from the cops first, I’m telling you again: what you say CAN and WILL be used against you.

We are conveniently located in Richmond, B.C. only a few steps away from Brighouse Station on the Canada Line, which brings you from various locations in Metro Vancouver in 20 minutes. We service all areas of the lower mainland (including but not limited to Surrey, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, and Abbotsford) the interior of B.C. (including but not limited to Cranbrook, Kelowna, Kamloops, and Salmon Arm), Northern B.C. (including but not limited to Prince George, Prince Rupert, and Quesnel) and in the Yukon Territory where we offer services in Whitehorse, Dawson City, and Old Crow.

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

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

Little Black Box: When smart devices aren’t so smart

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

When a defence lawyer gets a new file that involves the search and seizure of evidence from their client, the first thing they will want to investigate is if the search was lawful. An unlawful search can often result in evidence being excluded from Trial. Laws surrounding search and seizure are ever-changing, but the fundamental rights laid out in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are enduring. Section 8 of the Charter protects Canadians from unreasonable search and seizure, which means that police are often required to obtain a warrant (judicial authorization) before proceeding to collect any evidence they wish to use at Trial.

There have been several pivotal developments in this area of the law recently, one coming from the Court of Appeal. Rodney Fedan of Kamloops, B.C., lost the appeal of his dangerous driving causing death conviction after he argued that his Charter rights were violated when RCMP collected information from his truck’s “little black box” without a warrant. The little black box I am referring to is known as a Sensing Diagnostic Module (“SDM”); they are commonly installed by manufacturers in passenger vehicles. Their main purpose is to monitor the condition/deployment of the airbags, but they have become increasingly more intelligent over the past decade, and are coveted by accident re-constructionists for the data they record and store. Re-constructionists can download the data from the “little black box” and use it to develop insight into the nature of a motor vehicle accident. In Mr. Fedan’s case, the 5 seconds of data recorded by the SDM immediately preceding the crash (which is generally all they record) was all that was needed to prove that Mr. Fedan was travelling at approximately 106 km/hour when he veered off of the winding road he and his passengers. The ensuing accident resulted in the death of 22 year old Brittany Plotnikoff and 38 year old Ken Craigdallie.

Fedan argued that his reasonable expectation of privacy was breached when RCMP officers seized the data from his SDM without a warrant. Unfortunately for him, 3 B.C. Court of Appeal Judges disagreed when they held that the Supreme Court Judge was reasonable in allowing the material into evidence at Trial.

It is crucial to note that Mr. Fedan was not aware that the SDM was capable of downloading and storing data that would be useful to the RCMP in such an investigation. Since he had no knowledge of the data’s existence, he could have no reasonable expectation over its privacy. This is in stark contrast to the level of privacy a person would expect to have over the information stored on their computer or cellphone – warrants are generally required to seize and search these devices (unless searching them is considered to be incidental to arrest).

When the case was originally heard in October 2014, Mr. Fedan was sentenced to 3 years in jail and was banned for driving from 3 years. He was not convicted of impaired driving after the blood samples obtained were ruled to be inadmissible.

Impaired driving cases are complex, and are taken extremely serious by the police and the Courts. If you are facing charges related to drinking and driving, contact Jason and David Tarnow for a free consultation. Our office is conveniently located in central Richmond, easily accessible from anywhere in the lower mainland.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Dearly Deported

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

A student from Russia who has been studying in B.C. will find out on Wednesday if he will be ordered to leave Canada as a result of his recent criminal convictions. Vladislav Anautov, 23, plead guilty in Kamloops Provincial Court to an assault on his girlfriend that took place on February 27 in the off-campus apartment they shared together. The young man was free on Bail pending the outcome of his sentencing hearing – until the RCMP found his girlfriend hiding in his closet while checking to ensure he was abiding by the Court imposed conditions of his Bail (including a condition of having no contact with the victim). Anautov was promptly arrested and placed in custody. On Monday, April 20, 2015, he plead guilty to breaching the terms of his Bail order.

Since Anautov is in Canada on a student visa, an investigation was launched by the Canadian Border Services Agency to determine his immigration status. It has been reported that Vladislav will leave Canada on his own free will, which the Crown hopes to supplement with an Order from the Court. The Crown hopes to avoid having an immigration hearing, which could be both time consuming and costly.

A lot of people will read this article and wonder why the young woman is still in contact with her alleged abuser. You may be surprised to learn that this is not an uncommon occurrence in assault files. It is partially related to the fact that there is a common misconception about the charge process in Canada. Once you have called the police about an incident and they have become involved, the charge approval process is, for the most part, out of your hands. Individuals do not charge other individuals. Police agencies forward the results of their investigation to the charge approval sector of Crown Counsel, who will decide if there is enough evidence to charge the Accused (likelihood of conviction). That is why the style of cause in criminal proceedings heads the Queen against the Accused. For example:

R. v. John Smith à R stands for Regina, which represents our Queen (even though her name is Elizabeth. When we have a King, the R represents Rex).

We are a commonwealth country, and are sovereign to the (for now) Queen.

This is why domestic assault files are often difficult to prosecute. Again and again we see the complainant (the victim) wanting to withdraw from the process, or, completely refusing to participate in any part of said process that will lead to trouble for the Accused. It is very common to see an Accused person breach the terms of their Bail for this very reason – because both parties want to remain in contact.

 To sum it up: If you have been charged with assault stemming from a domestic incident, and have had a no-contact order put in place as a condition of your release, do not contact that person directly or indirectly. If they send you a text, do not respond to it. Do not answer their calls, or speak to them through a 3rd party – just call us.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail