Pubdate: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC) Copyright: 2007 The Vancouver Sun Contact: http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477 Author: Larry Pynn, Vancouver Sun Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada) COURT RULINGS UPHOLD IMPORTANT ANTI-DRUG TOOL, LAWYER SAYS The B.C. Court of Appeal, In Two Rulings, Allowed The Crown To Seize Homes From Owners Who Had Marijuana-Growing Operations Two decisions of the B.C. Court of Appeal Tuesday allowing the Crown to seize homes in which the owners had marijuana-growing operations uphold an important tool in the battle against illicit drug operations, says a lawyer representing the federal Justice Department. Paul Riley said in an interview that Section 16.1 of the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which allows for the forfeiture of homes used in drug operations such as marijuana-growing and crystal methamphetamine labs, is "an essential tool . . . . extremely important" to law enforcement agencies. Riley warned the forfeiture section applies not just to so-called owner-operators -- homeowners who grow marijuana in their own homes -- but to homeowners who knowingly allow another person to do so on their premises. Although there have been numerous homes forfeited for drug-related crimes in B.C., these two rulings are the first by the B.C. Court of Appeal in interpreting Section 16.1. Vancouver lawyer Jay Solomon, whose client was the subject of one of the two cases, agreed the rulings send a message. "It's an indication the courts are prepared to deal more harshly with marijuana cases than they have before. Forfeiture is substantial, it's a whack, a serious tool available to the Crown." He added that the effect of the rulings in the drug world may be fewer people growing marijuana in their own homes for fear of losing them should they be convicted of drug crimes. "I think the message is probably already out," he said, noting the province has similar powers under the Civil Forfeiture Act. In the first case, the court dismissed an application by Solomon's clients, Khai Thoi Huynh and Muoi Suu Ta, natives of Cambodia who came to Canada in the late 1980s, to appeal the forfeiture of their 4,000-square-foot Abbotsford home, bought in 2003 for $367,000. The couple, who have three children, pleaded guilty in January 2005 to a charge of growing marijuana, a total of 679 plants, and were sentenced to a four-month conditional jail term and a firearms prohibition. The growing operation had an estimated annual income of about $200,000 to $250,000, and used stolen electricity. Neither had a prior criminal record. "The appellants were not just gardeners or caretakers; they were the owner-operators of this large operation," Justice Catherine Anne Ryan said in a unanimous three-member decision. "Both appellants have the skills to earn legitimate income. Therefore, the motive for the commission of the offence can only be one of greed." She added: "I cannot say that the order of forfeiture is unreasonable." Solomon said he has not yet received instructions from his clients on whether to appeal. In the second case, Judy Ann Craig sought leave to appeal a conditional sentence of 12 months in jail, a fine of $100,000 and a victim surcharge of $15,000 in September 2005 after pleading guilty to producing marijuana at her North Vancouver home. The Crown also sought to appeal the sentence, arguing that it should not be conditional and seeking forfeiture of Craig's home in return for dropping the fine and victim surcharge. Ryan, again rendering a unanimous decision, ordered the forfeiture of Craig's home, set aside the $100,000 fine, but let the conditional jail sentence remain. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek