Pubdate: Mon, 27 Jan 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
Author: Sunny Dhillon

OPPAL BACKS CIVIL FORFEITURE ACT REVIEW

Former attorney-general says execution of law surrounding property
seizures in criminal cases has had unintended consequences

Wally Oppal was attorney-general when B.C. opened its Civil Forfeiture
Office. The former judge has since left politics and returned to law,
where he's heard concerns about the fairness of the process.

And, Mr. Oppal said, he would support a review of the Civil Forfeiture
Act and the effect it's had.

"I think it's always healthy to take a review and look at it from a
global perspective. Let's step back and see how it's been operating,
particularly in terms of fairness and how can we improve not only the
act, but the way it's been executed," he said.

Mr. Oppal was one of more than two dozen people interviewed by The
Globe and Mail during its months-long investigation of B.C.'s Civil
Forfeiture Office.

A 4,000-word piece published over the weekend noted the office has
rapidly increased the number of files it accepts and the amount of
money it brings in. At $41-million, B.C. has already seized more
property than Ontario, despite opening its office three years later.

But as the scale of the forfeitures has grown, so too have questions
about fairness, public interest and transparency. The office was
created to fight organized crime, but has come to have a wider reach.
Critics have questioned the public interest of some of the cases it
takes on and said many cannot afford to fight their case.

Ninety-nine per cent of the people the office targets settle on terms
favourable to the office.

Mr. Oppal was non-committal when asked if he himself believes the
system is unfair. He said the process has had some unintended
consequences - fewer cases involving marijuana grow ops are going into
the court system, he said, because the province has focused on seizing
property instead of prosecuting offenders.

Very little is publicly released about the Civil Forfeiture
Office.

It has not been audited or formally reviewed. Two years ago, it
upgraded its physical security and increased the confidentiality of
its employees.

Exactly why is not known, and the fact the B.C. government will not
disclose who works there - unlike Ontario - remains a sticking point
for those who say the office lacks transparency.

"Nobody's against security, but with justification for its needs,"
said Micheal Vonn, policy director with the B.C. Civil Liberties
Association.

"The question is, what is the need? And if you haven't justified it,
you can't just paint a sign that says, 'Well, it's for security.' "

Justice Minister Suzanne Anton and the office's executive director,
Phil Tawtel, in a joint interview would not say why security and
confidentiality was increased.

Ms. Anton said it's "not particularly relevant" who works at the
office.

"What's important is the head of it, the director, which is Phil, and
the person ultimately responsible, who's myself," she said.

Mr. Tawtel took over as executive director after Rob Kroeker left in
the fall of 2012 for a job with a gaming corporation. A Google search
for Mr. Tawtel's name turns up sporadic news stories, but he is not
regularly interviewed nor listed as the executive director on the
office's website. The location of the office is not known - the
address given is that of a Victoria post-office box.

Ms. Anton said it will ultimately be B.C.'s information and privacy
commissioner who decides whether the names of people who work at the
Civil Forfeiture Office should be made public.

Michael McEvoy, the deputy privacy commissioner, said it will likely
be months before a decision is released.

Blair Suffredine, a former B.C. Liberal member of the legislature
who's also a lawyer and has been critical of some of the cases the
office takes on, nonetheless questioned whether the information about
staff needs to be made public.

"What would it do for me as a citizen? And is it really worth the risk
that we might be putting somebody's life in jeopardy?" he asked. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D