« Essential Fatty Acids and Beautiful Healthy Skin and Fur | Main | AIDS GROUP ATTACKS MMAR »
Regina v. Michael Judge Curtis Van Santvoord, 2007 BCCA 23
By Hempology | August 19, 2007
Cannabis Digest
Michael Van Santvoord plead guilty, on July 12, 2006, in Provincial Court in Courtenay to two counts of production of marijuana pursuant:
[16] The Crown filed a report prepared by a police officer describing the alleged impact of marihuana grow operations in the Comox Valley. Among other things, the report asserted that much of the illegal harvests were believed to be destined for the United States. The report also indicated the harm caused by such operations through the use of dangerous weapons and booby-traps, the theft of electricity, the dangerous use of pesticides, the potential for house fires, the damage to the interior of rental properties, and the increased audacity of growers who, says the report, are not worried about being caught because of lenient sentences.
[17] The only submission made by the Crown with respect to the broader social implications of the actual crime before the court was that Mr. Van Santvoord likely paid no tax on his profits from the operation.
20] The sentencing judge next took issue with some of the statements made in the police report about the effect of marihuana grow operations in the Comox Valley. There is no need for this Court to discuss that aspect of the sentencing proceedings. Interesting as the report might be, none of the factors listed in it was connected to Mr. Van Santvoord’s case. No evidence was led as to the type of neighbourhood where the first house was located, and it seems that the second house was on farmland. There was no contention that either of the places was booby-trapped or that weapons were involved. Nor were there any allegations of electricity theft or poor environmental practices. There was no claim that the drug was destined for the United States. Finally, there was no assertion that any landlord had suffered damage.
[21] Before setting out the principles of sentencing that he would apply, the sentencing judge referred to excerpts from a book written by an American judge that questioned the effectiveness and consequences of drug laws in the United States. The sentencing judge also made note of the comments of Southin J.A. in R. v Schedel 2003 BCCA 364 (CanLII), (2003), 184 B.C.A.C. 166, 2003 BCCA 364 where, speaking for herself, she said:
[83] While at one time I accepted the received wisdom that marihuana offences were serious crimes, I now am of a different opinion, having been persuaded to the contrary by, among other writings, the judgment of my colleague, Prowse J.A., in R. v. Malmo-Levine 2000 BCCA 335 (CanLII), (2000), 145 C.C.C. (3d) 225, 34 C.R. (5th) 91, 2000 BCCA 335.
[84] By that, I do not mean that I would have come to the same conclusion in that case as did she. I have not yet abandoned my conviction that Parliament has a constitutional right to be hoodwinked, as it was in the 1920’s and 1930’s by the propaganda against marihuana, and to remain hoodwinked.
[85] The growing, trafficking in, and possession of marihuana (“Cannabis? in Schedule II to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, R.S.C. 1996, c. 19) is the source of much work, not only for peace officers but also for lawyers and judges. Whether that work contributes to peace, order and good government is another matter.
[87] In my years on the bench I have sat on over 40 cases which had something to do with this substance, which appears to be of no greater danger to society than alcohol.
Topics: Articles, CD-14th, Summer 2007 | Comments Off
Comments are closed.