Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
News (Media Awareness Project) - CN BC: Grow-Op Couple Lose Appeal, Home Seized
Title:CN BC: Grow-Op Couple Lose Appeal, Home Seized
Published On:2007-04-28
Source:Abbotsford News (CN BC)
Fetched On:2008-01-12 07:10:07
GROW-OP COUPLE LOSE APPEAL, HOME SEIZED

A couple who appealed the seizure of their Abbotsford home after they
used it for a marijuana grow operation have lost their case.

The B.C. Court of Appeal decision this week concluded the original
sentencing judge didn't err in ordering the forfeiture of the
couple's property, and their appeal was dismissed.

In October 2005, Judge Jill Rounthwaite ordered the house - owned by
Khai Thoi Huynh and Muoi Suu Ta who previously pleaded guilty to the
production of marijuana - to be forfeited to Crown counsel.

Her decision marked the first time an Abbotsford building used as a
grow-op was forfeited to the Crown as offence-related property.

The house, located at 35728 St. Andrew's Court, near Ledgeview Golf
Course, was the subject of an Abbotsford Police search warrant March 24, 2004.

Inside, officers found a three-stage marijuana growing operation,
including 679 plants.

The couple, who paid restitution for electrical theft through a hydro
bypass, appealed Rounthwaite's decision on the basis the impact of
the order was disproportionate to the crime.

They also challenged her finding the house wasn't their principle residence.

In a written decision B.C. Court of Appeal Justice Catherine Anne
Ryan agreed with the sentencing judge assessment that the grow
operation was a large-scale, on-going, moderately sophisticated
enterprise with over 600 plants in the basement of a 4,000 square foot home.

And the business likely produced $195,000 to $240,000 a year a profit
which would outweigh the equity of the home.

The couple had no criminal records, but offered no other evidence to
demonstrate the impact of forfeiture would be disproportionate to the offence.

Ryan also found Rounthwaite's conclusion that the house was not the
principle residence of the couple and their two children's was
reasonable, and there was no evidence the seizure would impact
innocent family members.
Member Comments
No member comments available...