When Randy George Scott was acquitted of driving a motorcycle at 299 km/h on Greater Victoria roads, he didn鈥檛 get the bike back. It had been seized and sold under sa国际传媒鈥檚 civil-forfeiture law before his trial began.
While many people were happy to see the proceeds of the motorcycle sale go to crime prevention, we should all be troubled by the way the forfeiture rules seem to be used as a 鈥済otcha鈥� against those who escape criminal conviction.
Vancouver businesswoman Mumtaz Ladha was acquitted last month of human trafficking. The judge said that not only was Ladha not guilty, but her accuser could not be believed. That should have been the end of Ladha鈥檚 trials, but it鈥檚 not.
The civil-forfeiture office is still proceeding with its case to seize her $4-million house, saying the home was an instrument of unlawful activity. The agency launched the claim two years ago, after Ladha was charged, and it can continue even though she has been found not guilty.
鈥淲hether proceedings are initiated in court or administratively, they are not reliant on criminal charges or convictions arising from the alleged unlawful activity,鈥� says the forfeiture agency鈥檚 website.
While most people don鈥檛 have a sophisticated understanding of the law, they are well able to understand the concept of justice. And snatching possessions from someone who has not been convicted of a crime offends that notion of justice.
Phil Tawtel, the director of the forfeiture agency, said due process of law applies to seizures, and they have been upheld by the Supreme Court of sa国际传媒. However, the process is not the same as in a criminal case.
As a civil case, forfeiture relies on a less onerous burden of proof. The agency has to prove its case only on the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard in criminal court.
We have a criminal justice system with rigorous procedures to try to make sure that only those who are guilty of a crime are punished. Setting up an alternative system, with a lower burden of proof, that metes out punishment without having to prove criminal guilt makes it appear that the government is more interested in winning than getting justice.
Micheal Vonn of the sa国际传媒 Civil Liberties Association said: 鈥淲e have said right from the get-go, it鈥檚 an end-run around the appropriate protections in the criminal justice system.鈥�
The thought of the proceeds of crime going to prevent crime and compensate victims is something that does square with the common notion of justice. British Columbians grin at the thought of a drug dealer鈥檚 hot car being sold to keep young people out of trouble or a scam artist鈥檚 house being used to pay back his ruined victims.
But if the alleged wrongdoer has been acquitted, the seizure looks less like justice and more like revenge. It appeals to our baser desire to get even.
Sometimes, people accused of a crime are found not guilty by a judge or jury. Verdicts can be appealed, but at some point they reach finality. As citizens of a country governed by the rule of law, we have to accept the verdict, even if we are convinced it is wrong.
If we try to take justice into our own hands, we undermine the foundations of society. Yet with civil forfeiture against acquitted persons, the government allows public servants outside the criminal justice system to do something very similar.
There is justice in taking the proceeds of crime and putting them to good use. But there is no justice in punishing those who have been found not guilty. It makes all of us uneasy in our rights.
