Supreme Court orders man to forfeit vehicle for drunk driving

A Supreme Court ruling that forces a habitual drunk driver to forfeit his vehicle paves the way for Quebec’s proposed new law for repeat offenders, but much more needs to be done to combat the problem, anti-drunk driving advocates say.

In a decision released Thursday, Supreme Court Justice J. Morris Fish argued the accused, Alphide Manning, had not satisfied the court that the impact of losing his vehicle would be disproportionate to the gravity of his offences.

On June 3, 2010, Manning, then 62, pleaded guilty to driving drunk on April 1 of the same year. The accused had a pending charge for a similar infraction committed on July 29, 2009, to which he also pleaded guilty. He had similar convictions dating back to 1989, 1982 and 1975.

A Quebec Court judge imposed a 12-month prison sentence on Manning for the 2010 infraction, and a five-month prison sentence for the 2009 infraction, to be served concurrently. The judge also forbade Manning from driving for five years once he has finished serving his sentences.

The Crown had requested Manning’s vehicle be seized, as an “offence-related property” according to the Criminal Code. But the trial judge, François Boisjoli, refused to order the confiscation of the vehicle, noting that the man was unemployed and his truck was his only possession. The judge also noted Manning and his wife were in poor health, and the truck was their only mode of transport from his residence, a motel in Chute-Aux-Outardes, to the nearest hospital, in BaieComeau.

The Crown appealed that decision to Quebec’s Court of Appeal, on the grounds that the trial judge had exceeded his powers by using humanitarian motives to justify his refusal to order confiscation of the vehicle. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, so the Crown appealed to the Supreme Court and won.

In Thursday’s decision, Fish wrote, “the trial judge erroneously emphasized Mr. Manning’s personal circumstances and failed to give appropriate weight ... to Mr. Manning’s criminal record, including five convictions of alcohol-related driving of- fences and three for breaches of probation orders or undertakings.”

Marie Claude Morin, a spokesperson for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, applauded the measure of seizing the vehicle, even if it seriously inconveniences the repeat offender and his family.

Mr. Manning’s situation “is all very sad, and we need to have some compassion, but these are the things Mr. Manning should have been thinking about before committing a serious crime, because (drunk driving) is a serious crime,” Morin said.

She also welcomed a new directive issued by Quebec’s justice minister that states prosecutors should routinely request the seizure of vehicles when the driver is convicted of impaired driving for a third time.

But she said what Quebec really needs is a short-term license suspension program, similar to those in other provinces, whereby drivers who test close to the legal blood alcohol concentration limit have their licenses suspended for 24 hours or longer periods depending on how many times they have been stopped in this condition.

Quebec should also have random breath testing programs, she argued, which are more efficient and effective than existing roadblock programs where drivers are only tested if an officer suspects they are over the limit. Quebec also needs a campaign to encourage those who see someone they believe is driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to call 911, Morin added.

All of these measures have been proved to work to reduce drunk driving in other jurisdictions, and Quebec should stop dragging its feet, she said.

“We are very pleased to see the Quebec government paying attention to this, because it shines a light on the issue, but it is not sufficient,” Morin said, noting that firsttime drunk driving offenders cause more accidents than repeat offenders.