Pubdate: Thu, 29 May 2014
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2014 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Authors: Sunny Dhillon and Justine Hunter
Page: S1

CASES CHOSEN 'WITH GOOD REASON': ANTON

Province's Justice Minister says a formal review of property seizures
is not needed, despite criticisms of office's methods

B.C.'s Justice Minister says she's confident the province's Civil
Forfeiture Office has only pursued cases in the public interest -
though the government agency has just recently abandoned two
long-standing files that raised serious concerns about how evidence
was obtained.

Suzanne Anton, who has stood by the office since a Globe and Mail
investigation earlier this year raised questions about fairness and
transparency, reiterated her support Wednesday.

She said she has discussed the concerns with officials, and that the
office only takes cases recommended by police if the law and evidence
are on its side.

"I have fundamental support for the system because I know it is done
with good reason and with good authority," Ms. Anton said.

The Globe's investigation found that the office, which was created in
2006 to fight organized crime, has come to have a far broader reach.
The office does not need a conviction or even charges to pursue a
file, and B.C. has been far more aggressive in seizing property than
other provinces.

Critics have said the penalties handed out in civil-forfeiture cases
can be wildly disproportionate to the alleged offence and called the
program a cash cow.

There have been calls from three B.C. Liberal caucus members, the
Official Opposition, and both a former solicitor-general and a former
attorney-general for a review.

Ms. Anton has said there is no need for a formal review, but indicated
Wednesday that she has discussed the concerns that have been raised
with the office.

She said the office can't be expected to succeed in 100 per cent of
the cases it takes on.

"The vast majority of cases do succeed because the office is very
careful about the cases they do move forward with," she said.

In April, the office abandoned the case of David Lloydsmith. A judge
had earlier ruled a warrantless police search of Mr. Lloydsmith's home
that turned up marijuana plants was in violation of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Charges were never laid against him, but the
Civil Forfeiture Office went after Mr. Lloydsmith's modest residence,
taking the matter all the way to the province's highest court before
suddenly throwing in the towel.

The Globe reported earlier this week that the office has now also
abandoned the case of Robert Murray, which raised similar concerns.
Mr. Murray planned to argue that a February, 2012, police search of
his property that yielded 72 marijuana plants violated his Charter
rights because it was conducted without a warrant. He, too, had not
been charged.

Tonia Grace, a lawyer who has worked on approximately 10 civil
forfeiture cases, said she has noticed something of a change in the
office's approach after the barrage of criticism.

She said she still has her share of criticism of the office but, "to
be fair," lawyers for the agency have exhibited less of a hardline
stand of late.

"They seem to be trying to be more reasonable about continuing with
some of these cases where they don't really have a case, where they're
just trying to fish, fish, fish, fish, fish," she said in an interview.

Ms. Grace said the office has long tried to stretch the files out,
making them as financially draining for defendants as possible.

But she said one of her long-running cases just settled because her
clients received an offer they felt they couldn't pass up. She
declined to discuss the specifics, since the court proceeding has not
been finalized.

"I do think, and maybe I'm being hopeful, that some of the lawyers
have been taking more of a practical approach to these cases," she
said.

Jay Solomon, another lawyer who has worked on several civil forfeiture
cases, has said he has not seen much of a change in the office's conduct.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt