COURT RULINGS UPHOLD IMPORTANT ANTI-DRUG TOOL, LAWYER SAYS

The B.C. Court of Appeal, In Two Rulings, Allowed The Crown To Seize
Homes From Owners Who Had Marijuana-Growing Operations

Two decisions of the B.C. Court of Appeal Tuesday allowing the Crown
to seize homes in which the owners had marijuana-growing operations
uphold an important tool in the battle against illicit drug
operations, says a lawyer representing the federal Justice Department.

Paul Riley said in an interview that Section 16.1 of the federal
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which allows for the forfeiture
of homes used in drug operations such as marijuana-growing and crystal
methamphetamine labs, is "an essential tool . . . . extremely
important" to law enforcement agencies.

Riley warned the forfeiture section applies not just to so-called
owner-operators -- homeowners who grow marijuana in their own homes --
but to homeowners who knowingly allow another person to do so on their
premises.

Although there have been numerous homes forfeited for drug-related
crimes in B.C., these two rulings are the first by the B.C. Court of
Appeal in interpreting Section 16.1.

Vancouver lawyer Jay Solomon, whose client was the subject of one of
the two cases, agreed the rulings send a message. "It's an indication
the courts are prepared to deal more harshly with marijuana cases than
they have before. Forfeiture is substantial, it's a whack, a serious
tool available to the Crown."

He added that the effect of the rulings in the drug world may be fewer
people growing marijuana in their own homes for fear of losing them
should they be convicted of drug crimes.

"I think the message is probably already out," he said, noting the
province has similar powers under the Civil Forfeiture Act.

In the first case, the court dismissed an application by Solomon's
clients, Khai Thoi Huynh and Muoi Suu Ta, natives of Cambodia who came
to Canada in the late 1980s, to appeal the forfeiture of their
4,000-square-foot Abbotsford home, bought in 2003 for $367,000.

The couple, who have three children, pleaded guilty in January 2005 to
a charge of growing marijuana, a total of 679 plants, and were
sentenced to a four-month conditional jail term and a firearms
prohibition. The growing operation had an estimated annual income of
about $200,000 to $250,000, and used stolen electricity.

Neither had a prior criminal record.

"The appellants were not just gardeners or caretakers; they were the
owner-operators of this large operation," Justice Catherine Anne Ryan
said in a unanimous three-member decision. "Both appellants have the
skills to earn legitimate income. Therefore, the motive for the
commission of the offence can only be one of greed."

She added: "I cannot say that the order of forfeiture is
unreasonable."

Solomon said he has not yet received instructions from his clients on
whether to appeal.

In the second case, Judy Ann Craig sought leave to appeal a
conditional sentence of 12 months in jail, a fine of $100,000 and a
victim surcharge of $15,000 in September 2005 after pleading guilty to
producing marijuana at her North Vancouver home.

The Crown also sought to appeal the sentence, arguing that it should
not be conditional and seeking forfeiture of Craig's home in return
for dropping the fine and victim surcharge.

Ryan, again rendering a unanimous decision, ordered the forfeiture of
Craig's home, set aside the $100,000 fine, but let the conditional
jail sentence remain.