JUDGE'S DECISION ON GANG LAW HAS POLICE SCRAMBLING

VANCOUVER -- Wiretaps have been turned off. Investigations have been
put under review. Police and Crown attorneys have been consulting. In
British Columbia and across the country, officials are scrambling
after a Vancouver judge ruled that a portion of the federal anti-gang
law was unconstitutional.

When Madam Justice Heather Holmes took a hard look at the
four-year-old law that had come into question in a case before her,
she basically stamped it, "Return to sender."

In her Dec. 8 ruling, which was released last week, she said
Parliament must clarify what the law means when it refers to a
"criminal organization." She said the existing definition was too
broad and too vague for the courts.

The law had been a key part of Parliament's recent crackdown on
organized crime, and the federal Crown prosecutor's office in British
Columbia said it intends to appeal Judge Holmes's decision.

B.C. police say they are watching twice as many gangs as they were two
years ago and that organized crime may account for 4 per cent of the
province's gross domestic product. Police say they need tough laws
that target gangs and gang leaders.

Chief Superintendent Bob Paulson, director-general of major and
organized crime in the RCMP's criminal-intelligence section and one of
the country's leading experts on biker gangs, said his phone has not
stopped ringing since the ruling was released.

Chief Supt. Paulson said his colleagues were stunned by the decision.
"They were all walking around with their mouths open saying, 'What
does this mean?' I tell you, the level of commitment and work that
they put into one of these projects is something no one appreciates,"
he said. "You basically surrender your life for a year, working 18- to
20-hour days."

The Organized Crime Bill passed by Parliament in 2002 changed the
Criminal Code so that members of "criminal organizations" would face
stiff penalties. But what constitutes a member of a criminal
organization? In her ruling, Judge Holmes wrote that it was not
difficult to envision cases in which people such as martial-arts
instructors may be aware of a criminal gang but be unaware that they
may be considered part of it.

The judge's decision, while limited in scope, could pull the rug out
from under much of the legislation. "The decision speaks to [Section]
467.13 [of the Criminal Code], but it goes at its heart to what the
definition of a criminal organization is," Chief Supt. Paulson said.

While the ruling is not necessarily fatal to police investigations, it
does cause problems. For example, police usually have to convince
judges that wiretaps are a necessary last resort, and the anti-gang
law made it easier to get wiretaps and keep them in place.

In some cases, the RCMP have had to stop their sleuthing as a result
of the ruling and look at whether the now problematic section of the
Criminal Code has come into play. If it has, some evidence may no
longer be valid. "What we had to do is pull wiretaps," Chief Supt.
Paulson said.

Federal prosecutor Robert Prior said he hopes the Crown's appeal of
Judge Holmes's ruling will be heard by spring. He also noted that
other laws remain in place. "Losing the section doesn't mean we're
without tools right now," he said.

But defence lawyers across the country are poised to
pounce.

"I think that if the meaning of the 'member' is vague and open to
attack, it really leaves the whole anti-gang legislation vulnerable,"
said Steve Skurka, who represented two members of the Hells Angels in
Barrie, Ont., in the summer. Their landmark convictions under the
anti-gang law are now being appealed.

Meanwhile, some members of the Hells Angels say they feel vindicated
by Judge Holmes' decision.

"It was very poorly worded legislation, hastily done, and I'm glad to
see some corrections being made," said Rick Ciarnello, a spokesman for
the Vancouver Hells Angels, who read the decision.

"I'm not opposed to legislation that goes after people committing
crimes. I'm opposed to a legislation that goes after a group rather
than an individual," he said.