THE ROLE OF FORFEITURE IN SENTENCING

An order forcing a Vancouver woman to forfeit a home in which she
operated a small-scale marijuana grow operation is unconscionably
harsh, her lawyer says in a brief to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The case, which will be heard next Thursday, shows an entirely
different side of the forfeiture debate. The defendant, Judy Ann
Craig, 58, is throwing herself on the mercy of the court in a bid to
keep her home.

"Forfeiture of a residence of someone at retirement age, with no
record, is severe and destroys hope in rehabilitation," says a brief
to the court from Howard Rubin. "It serves no sentencing purpose."

Ms. Craig pleaded guilty in 2003 to unlawfully producing marijuana.
She received a conditional sentence and a total fine of $115,000,
with forfeiture substituted for the fine. Since she also owes more
than $200,000 in unpaid taxes, the sentence renders it inevitable
that she will have to forfeit her home.

In a brief for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, lawyer Scott
Hutchison argued that the sentence is out of step with other
Commonwealth countries, where forfeiture is recognized as a severe
punishment in particular cases.

"To maintain that forfeiture of offence-related property is not a
punitive measure, subject to the checks and balances of the deeply
entrenched sentencing principles of proportionality and totality, is
to cling to a fiction," Mr. Hutchison said.

However, B.C. prosecutors defended the sentence in a brief, stating
that: "Ms. Craig made a planned and deliberate choice to use the
property as a tool or business asset in furtherance of an illegal
commercial enterprise."