Alleged Gangster’s Rights Violated in Prison

Justice Mark McEwan said in a lengthy ruling released on June 9, 2010 that alleged gangster Jamie Bacon’s constitutional rights were violated when he was subjected to inhumane conditions when he was held at the Surrey Pre-trial Centre. The prison warden directly violated Jamie Bacon’s section 7 right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

According to the Vancouver Sun, Jamie Bacon was kept in inhumane conditions which included being kept in isolation for 23 hours a day, having his phone rights taken away and having his visits curtailed without any reason. Justice McEwan stated that the condition in which Jamie Bacon was kept in clearly “threatened the security of his person (which includes both a physical and psychological dimension) by the unlawful deprivation of his rights for a unlawful purpose.” He further noted that the corrections guards acted for the police in keeping Jamie Bacon in such horrendous conditions – this appears to indicate some sort of collaboration between the two agencies.

It is important to keep in mind that while Jamie Bacon has been charged and arrested for his role in the infamous “Surrey Six” murders, he has not been proven guilty in the court of law. No human being should have their rights violated. These rights are absolute; they are not contingent upon a set of criteria or circumstances. These rights are the cornerstone of democracy. I also believe that this ruling sets limits on what government agencies such as the police can do. I think the majority of the people will agree with me when I say that we should not live in a society where the police can do whatever they like. There must be limits on police powers. This gross violation of human rights could have happened to anyone, and therefore it is important to remember that there must be a balance between the rights of the police to investigate – but that the rights of a citizen charged, but convicted of no crime, must be paramount.

BC Gets Tough on Drinking and Driving

Solicitor General Mike de Jong introduced new legislation on drinking and driving that will make British Columbia the toughest in Canada on impaired drivers.With the new legislation any individual who fails a roadside screening with a blood alcohol level above 0.08 could be hit with a penalty $3,750* along with an automatic three month driving ban and a 30 day vehicle impoundment.

Costs for Having a Blood Alcohol Level Over 0.08 on a Roadside Screening Device
Administrative Penalty $500
License Reinstatement Fee $250
Towing & Impoundment Fee for 30 days $700
Responsible Driver’s Program Fee $880
Ignition Interlock Device Fee (1 Year) $1,420
Total $3,750

The new legislation also includes penalties for impaired drivers who blow in the warning range of 0.05-0.08:
1.a $200 fine and a three day driving ban for the first incident in five years;
2.a $300 fine and a seven day ban for the second incident in five years; and
3.a $400 fine and 30 day driving ban for the third incident in five years.

Individuals who blow in the warning range of 0.05 to 0.08 will also be hit with a $250 driver reinstatement fee and be charged a $150 for having their vehicle impounded for three days.

People who are caught three times in one year for blowing in the warning range or those individuals who blow over 0.08 will also be required to participate in the Responsible Driver Program and use an ignition interlock device, which measures a driver’s blood alcohol level every time they start their vehicle, for a period of one year. The new legislation also states that individuals who refuse to provide a breath sample will also face a 90 day driving prohibition and a $500 fine.

The new drinking and driving legislation is designed to not need the approval of Crown Counsel making it very likely that impaired drivers will be hit with the most severe penalties possible. What this actually means, however, is that first time impaired drivers will NOT be facing charges. That’s outrageous. It takes away the certainty that the Justice System is meant to instill: a democratic process which safeguards individuals from state intrusion. Instead, it trades the certainty of the justice system for an arbitrary process that will not be subject to the same safeguards and that’s just wrong.

Conservative ‘Truth in Sentencing’ Act will cost Canadian Taxpayers Billions

On February 22, 2010, the Truth in Sentencing Act which eliminates two for one credit for time spent in custody before sentencing was passed into law. Two for one time – so called “dead time – was credited for two reasons: first, because there are no rehabilitative programs available for people on remand and second, because remission – time off for “good behaviour” that sees prisoners reintegrated into society by having control over them through supervision and halfway houses – is not available for time before sentencing.

This Act is a bad idea. It’s not “truth” in sentencing. It’s the Conservatives making themselves look better to a scared and sometimes uninformed public.The cases of R v. Mills, R v. Wust and R v. Rezaie are perfect examples of why two for one credit has been awarded and illustrate the principles that judges rely on. My case out of our Court of Appeal, R v. Calder Berg, awarded dead time to my client who had been denied dead time and it’s a great read.

We now find out that this “tough on crime” agenda will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Several media sources – including the National Post and the Vancouver Sun- indicate that this will cost Canadians a total of $10 billion over the next five years. 10 Billion! What could we buy with 10 billion dollars? Especially when we could use the help in the form of transfer payments to assist with schools, social housing and to combat child poverty? We should all be outraged.
Future plans of the Conservative government include eliminating automatic statutory release after an individual has served two thirds of their sentence and imposing more mandatory minimum sentences for drug related offences.

Only time will tell how much this get tough on crime agenda will cost Canadians. In the United States, generally the largest lobbyists for the infamous “three strikes: you’re out” law was the CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. That should give anyone a reason to look at who is actually benefiting from these new laws.

An Open Letter to Mike DeJong, Solicitor General, Premier Gordon Campbell, and Colin Hansen

Well, the Olympics are almost over, so that means it's BUDGET TIME. Legal aid funding is on the chopping block - again! If it is cut, this will be the ninth successive time that it has been cut since 2000. It's a travesty.

If, like me, you believe that Legal aid funding is crucial to an operating democracy, there is still time to let your voice be heard. Email GORDON CAMPBELL: Premier@gov.bc.ca; MIKE DEJONG: 'mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca'; or COLIN HANSEN: 'colin.hansen.mla@leg.bc.ca'.

Here is what I wrote:

Dear Sirs,

I write to request that funding for the Legal Services Society AT LEAST remain at current levels for the 2010-2011 budget year. Legal aid services in this province are at crisis levels and Legal Services Society staff are overworked, underpaid and often doing three or four job descriptions. The tariff has been cut multiple times since the first cuts in 2000; my count is at least five times, including internal policy shifts. Legal aid is an ESSENTIAL service to a working, corruption-free democracy and the tariff cannot be cut any further.

The flood of unrepresented people in our courts have shown that your short-term thinking in cutting the tariff the first time is actually costing the province MORE money – more court time means more judges’ salaries, more sheriffs on shift, more clerks and administration and more courtrooms have to be open to expedite the amount of people in the system. LSS recently cut coverage for all category 1 offences (breaches) including for those where the Crown was asking for jail time. This has resulted in more people going into custody when they have a viable defence in law. This should horrify any right-thinking, reasonable person. It should also point out the futility of short term solutions, as it results in the state having to house and control an ever-expanding inmate population - costing the state more and more every year as the cost of food and essentials continues to climb.

I understand your government would like to be perceived as “tough on crime”. I understand the majority of British Columbia’s population believes in funding the police and Attorney General services and doesn’t believe in funding “freeloaders” on the criminal justice system. I can also say that my job is perceived as being just a barrier to jailing criminals. However, I implore you to look south of the border to the United States and their Innocence Project – how many of those people might have been saved decades of their lives by being properly represented in court? We are facing the same situation here as on major case files LSS has refused funding for private investigators, transcripts, junior counsel, and all manner of disbursements, citing lack of funding. Of course, Crown has all these resources available to them. The meager resources of an unrepresented (or underrepresented) accused are no match for a well-funded state.

I am not unrealistic; I understand that the economic downturn and poor attendance at the Olympics have resulted in a terrible climate for the province as a whole. I ask that you keep LSS funding at the same level as last year, with an inflationary adjustment. Should you choose to cut LSS funding, I project the legal aid boycott currently going on in Kamloops will expand to the rest of the province. I will be a proud supporter of that boycott.

I am a criminal defence lawyer here in Vancouver, called since 2004. I worked at the Legal Services Society through UBC Law in 2000-2003. I am a proud member of a profession that works quietly and selflessly in probono services across the province. I have had to minimize the amount of legal aid files I take. It is not financially feasible to take legal aid files. Lawyers all over the province are turning away from legal aid files because they cannot pay their taxes and their staff with what we are being paid.

The legal aid situation in this province is a travesty. Keeping the funding at its’ current levels is, in my opinion, the least you can do.

Regards,
Lisa Jean Helps

Happy New Year!!

Hello Everyone,

Happy New Year to all of my readers, both through Cannabis Culture and through the blog! We have some big cases coming up this year, and I think you can expect to see an analysis of the new Vancouver no-cellphones-while-driving legislation shortly! But, just for fun, I give you Batman. My job is much closer to Law And Order than you'd imagine, but it'd be way easier with Batman on for the VPD or RCMP. A "crimefighter" who doesn't play by the Charter of Rights and who relies on violence to achieve his goal? Oh, yes. All the evidence in those trials would be excluded.

Enjoy!

Innocent Until Proven Guilty: Why It's Important

In 1999, Sherry Sherret-Robinson faced the worst thing a mother can face: her son, Joshua, was found dead in his crib. The pathologist, Dr. Charles Smith, testified that, due to hemorrages in Joshua's neck, and a fractured skull, that he was murdered. Sherry Sherret-Robinson was convicted of killing Joshua by smothering him. She has served 10 years in jail for doing so.

Today, after the joint submissions of Crown and Defence, based on new expert evidence, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that Ms. Sherret-Robinson should be acquitted. The new reports suggest there was no skull fracture and the neck hemorrhages were in fact caused by Smith during the autopsy.The experts concluded there was no basis in the pathology to support Smith's inference the baby was deliberately smothered or suffocated, but that it can't be ruled out.

Instead, the autopsy findings and the fact that Joshua had numerous layers of blankets under, around and on top of him, "reasonably support the conclusion that death occurred by an accidental asphyxial means in an unsafe sleeping environment."

How sad. That's why, whenever people ask how I can defend someone I "know" is guilty, I always respond that because I'm not God, I never "know". Not being a pathologist, Dr. Smith's evidence might have seemed very persuasive to me and to Ms. Sherret-Robinson's lawyer.

In Memoriam - 4 Police Officers Shot Dead in Washington State.

Our hearts here at Helps Law Offices go out to all the officers in the Pierce County, Washington, today, especially the Pierce County Sheriffs and the Lakewood Police Department.

The officers — three men and a woman from the Lakewood Police Department — were attacked at 8:15 a.m. local time yesterday. Two of the officers were shot and killed as they sat at a table. Another one was shot standing up. The fourth officer fought with the gunman and made it outside and was able to get off some shots. They were about to go on shift. All of them were doing paperwork and enjoying each other's company.

Working in the justice system is hard, no matter who you are. As an advocate, my job is to ensure my client is treated fairly and is given the best possible defence, because the Crown has the burden of proving the case. I have met police officers that I thought were sleazy jerks; police have often come across counsel that are sleazy jerks. By and large, however, most police officers are trying to do their jobs competently. I've met some real heroes, too.

No one should be in jeopardy of death for their jobs. To be put in a situation where you are in the line of fire is one thing and I know plenty of wives and husbands of police officers who accept that their spouse is in mortal danger on a regular basis. That's different than this. These officers weren't on an active investigation; they weren't chasing a suspect in hot pursuit; they didn't enter a situation to help someone only to find it was more dangerous than they anticipated - they were having coffee. They were catching up on the administrative part of their job. They were alive - and then they died. It's sickening.

May they rest in peace.