Hells Angels legal professionals say choose made the correct choice on clubhouses

Article content material

A lawyer for the Hells Angels mentioned Wednesday {that a} choose who dominated towards the forfeiture of three biker clubhouses had rigorously assessed the proof offered by the B.C. authorities and appropriately rejected it.

Article content material

Alison Latimer instructed the B.C. Enchantment Courtroom that the director of civil forfeiture is solely flawed when he says a decrease courtroom choose utilized a “quasi-criminal” commonplace within the long-running civil forfeiture case as an alternative of the steadiness of likelihood civil courtroom commonplace.

Earlier this week, the director’s lawyer Brent Olthuis argued that the June 2020 choice by B.C. Supreme Courtroom Justice Barry Davies needs to be overturned as he used the upper evidentiary commonplace in siding with the biker gang.

Davies’ ruling mentioned that the B.C. company had not confirmed its declare that the clubhouses can be utilized in future for illegal exercise or that they “play an essential position in enabling and empowering members of the Hells Angels to have interaction in severe crime for monetary achieve.”

Article content material

However Olthuis mentioned Davies utilized “an elevated commonplace of proof” in rejecting proof that the properties in Nanaimo, East Vancouver and Kelowna had been used as “secure homes” and “intelligence hubs” to help in future criminality.

Latimer disagreed, saying Davies “didn’t err in legislation or elevate the usual of proof.”

She urged the director was taking some paragraphs within the prolonged ruling out of context when Davies was merely repeating the federal government submission at trial earlier than rejecting it.

One instance she gave associated to proof in regards to the bikers’ “penchant for secrecy and a preoccupation with rats and snitches” the place the federal government argued this “arises from a want to stop detection of legal exercise.”

Article content material

“And this dialogue arises in context of the trial choose’s consideration of whether or not the director has proved that the Hells Angels is a worldwide legal group,” she mentioned.

However later within the ruling, Davies “says in the previous couple of strains that this isn’t the one affordable inference that may be drawn,” Latimer instructed Enchantment Courtroom Justices Mary Newbury, Christopher Grauer and Leonard Marchand.

“This isn’t the trial choose making use of the legal legislation framework for circumstantial proof. What he makes clear on this line is that he’s responding to the director’s submission that this was the one affordable inference that could possibly be drawn. The trial choose is evident that he’s assessing the submission on steadiness, he says. In different phrases, on the steadiness of possibilities.”

Article content material

In his 2020 ruling, Davies additionally sided with the Hells Angels that a part of the B.C. Civil Forfeiture Act permitting for property to be seized based mostly on doable future legal use needs to be struck down as a result of the part falls exterior provincial jurisdiction.

However Gareth Morley, a lawyer for the provincial attorney-general argued this week {that a} 2009 Supreme Courtroom of Canada ruling referred to as Chatterjee upheld Ontario’s forfeiture legislation — the Civil Cures Act — as constitutional.

He mentioned the Supreme Courtroom ruling “is not only trying on the previous, it’s trying at this time and would-be perpetrators and is taking a look at deterrence as a part of the impact of the civil cures.”

A second lawyer for the attorney-general, Dan Scanlan, mentioned Davies’ evaluation “is poor.”

“If it had been carried out accurately, the end result would have been the identical as Chatterjee,” he mentioned. “Whereas civil forfeiture per se is a product of the twenty first century, the ability to grab property that’s been utilized in illegal exercise has a protracted provincial historical past.”

kbolan@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/kbolan