CIVIL FORFEITURE LAWS CREATE 'REVERSE ONUS'

With the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously concluding that a
federal law was wrong to order the forfeiture of Judy Ann Craig's
home, the way is clear for others to challenge the seizure of assets,
such as the Hells Angels Nanaimo clubhouse.

This is the beginning of the end of this unfair law. Civil forfeiture
laws, in my opinion, create a "reverse-onus" requiring defendants to
prove they did not gain the asset from unlawful activity.
Examinations for discovery are conducted and cases are decided on the
civil standard of proof -- the balance of probabilities -- rather
than the higher criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other jurisdictions that have introduced civil forfeiture
legislation, such as Italy, South Africa, Ireland, the United
Kingdom, Fiji, the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, individual states within Australia, and Antigua,
statistics indicate that asset forfeiture has failed to prevent
methamphetamine drug crime.

In those jurisdictions, there are hundreds of documented cases of
innocent citizens wrongfully deprived of their homes, businesses and
livelihoods. For example, 80% of property forfeited in the U.S. was
seized from owners who were never even charged with a crime.

This double-edged sword has created opportunity for agencies to
abandon investigations, and creates a conflict of interest between
effective crime control, the courts, and creative fiscal management
that will persist so long as law enforcement agencies remain
dependent on civil asset forfeiture.

It is like ticketing the motor vehicle rather than the driver who was
behind the wheel. In the case of photo radar, a ticket would be sent
to the owner of the vehicle, which may not be the driver.

William Perry

Victoria