Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
News (Media Awareness Project) - CN NS: Man Faces No Charges But Judge Says Province Can Hold
Title:CN NS: Man Faces No Charges But Judge Says Province Can Hold
Published On:2011-06-21
Source:Chronicle Herald (CN NS)
Fetched On:2011-06-22 06:01:49
MAN FACES NO CHARGES BUT JUDGE SAYS PROVINCE CAN HOLD ONTO HIS CASH

New Civil Forfeiture Law Costs C.B. Drywaller

SYDNEY -- A judge ruled Monday that the province can hold a Sydney
Mines man's assets under new civil forfeiture legislation, even though
he isn't facing any criminal charges.

This is the first time the province has applied the new Civil
Forfeiture Act in court. It came into effect in April.

John Joseph Reynolds, 36, represented himself Monday in Nova Scotia
Supreme Court in Sydney.

In February, a police search of Reynolds's home turned up nine grams
of marijuana and five grams of hash packaged individually in small
plastic baggies. Police also found two digital scales, several hundred
empty small baggies, a bag of dextrose, scissors and a spoon with
possible cocaine traces, six cellphones with photos of drugs and text
messages about buying drugs, and $5,725 in cash.

The items were found in various rooms.

The province wanted the money, which was being held by Cape Breton
Regional Police, transferred to its coffers until a judge can make a
final ruling on whether it is connected to proceeds of crime. Reynolds
was charged with two counts of drug possession, although he learned
Monday those charges would be dropped.

In court, Reynolds told Justice Cindy Bourgeois that the drugs weren't
his but that he claimed them to protect someone else. Reynolds also
argued that the money was honestly earned. He said he works full time
as a drywaller and for two months during the year on a crab boat.

"It's not from drug money," Reynolds told the court.

He produced two receipts from January and October 2010 to show the
money was earned legally.

A lawyer from the province argued that there is sufficient evidence to
transfer the money at this time.

The court agreed, granting the request.

Bourgeois pointed out that the legislation says unless it isn't in the
interest of justice, "the court shall make a preservation order
applied for under (the legislation)."

Bourgeois said there was a reasonable belief, based on definitions in
the act and the items found in Reynolds's home, that the cash could be
the proceeds of crime.

"(The evidence) strongly supports the cash is the product of the sale
of illegal substances. The very same evidence strongly supports a
reasonable belief that the $5,725 would have been utilized to purchase
further illegal substances as part of what appears to be an ongoing
professional enterprise."

Reynolds's attempt to show the money was honestly earned was
insufficient "to displace the reasonable grounds established by the
other evidence," said Bourgeois.

"I've heard nothing today that would establish that the interim
forfeiture in this instance would not be in the interest of justice."

Reynolds may have a valid defence, she said, but that will have to be
proved at a later date.

Outside the courtroom, Reynolds said he disagrees with the new
legislation. He doesn't think his money should be seized, especially
when he isn't facing any charges.

There is no drug dealing going on at this house and the cellphones
that were found belong to someone else, he said.

"I don't think it's right. When I went to jail, I had money in my
pocket and they give me that back. Why didn't they give me my money
back that was in my house?"

Reynolds said he would likely speak to a lawyer before his next court
date.

Dan Harrison, a communications adviser with the Justice Department,
said he couldn't comment on a case in progress, but he called the
first application of the act "a watershed day" for the department.

"It is a tool we intend to use as much as possible to help Nova
Scotians feel safer and be safer."

Harrison said there is nothing special about this case, but that Cape
Breton Regional Police referred it to the department as a possible
candidate under the legislation. He disputed that the legislation is
in any way infringing on people's rights.

Because it is civil legislation, Harrison said people are required to
prove their case the same way the province must prove its own.

"There's no reverse onus or anything like that."
Member Comments
No member comments available...