Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuz
Of course speeding and speed limits are black and white, that's why it's considered a regulatory offense (aka quasi-criminal law); either you do it or don't. The point is that section 11(d) guarantees us the right to the presumption of innocence, regardless of how blatant or obvious the offense. Getting a simple ticket for speeding doesn't violate this principle, you can still contest the ticket if you wish. However, if your vehicle is impounded, the punishment is more or less being handed out before your guilt is proven. Furthermore, most people cannot afford to let their vehicle sit in an impound lot for the length of time it could take for your trial to be heard (My wife took 19 months to have her trial heard in BC).
|
Quoting for emphasis. Exactly this. There's no way this should be constitutional, imo.
You cannot mete out the punishment without giving the person accused of the offense a chance to assert their innocence. The only difference between a "black and white" offense like this and any other is that there is no need for the Crown to prove your intention. They must still prove that you committed the impugned ACT itself. Even if that seems utterly obvious (we've got witnesses and a radar gun!) basic, fundamental principles of justice still require that they PROVE it.
I would add that given the severity of the punishment (having a significant amount of property seized and being stranded on a highway in the boonies) is significant enough that there's probably at least an argument - perhaps not a terribly good argument but an argument nonetheless - that this offense is criminal in nature. In which case B.C. isn't allowed to implement it and it wouldn't be absolute liability.
If I got hit by this, I'd be making myself as big an inconvenience to the BCAG as humanly possible because it's utter BS.