Providing exact test times is not essential for speeding offences. Recent court decisions (by judges, not JPs) have been very clear on this. If the officer testifies that they tested the device BEFORE and AFTER your reading and were qualified to operate the device, then that is sufficient. Its not an 'element' of the offence to have to provide test times or prove the device was properly functioning in order to make out a case for speeding (after all, the offence can be proven via pacing or even via speed estimation by the officer, etc.). However, without more specifics, the court can be left with reasonable doubt. That's really the law in a nutshell.
So, in your case, your argument about the lack of test times in your disclosure will undoubtedly be shot down VERY quickly. You don't need it to defend yourself. However, if the officer testified with exact test times from other notes then YES, you could successfully argue that full disclosure was not provided. However, if the officer is simply testifying based upon his recollection, then that's what the cross-examination was for. Many people think they are entitled to everything that the officer (or a witness) will say on the stand before trial----but that's not what disclosure rights are about. If that were the case then it would take away the need for trial and relying upon statements under oath. The officer (as with any other witness) may therefore say whatever they want on the stand-----you then must cross-examine them if you wish to challenge or weaken their testimony.
Now, you could likely win your appeal based upon another more fundamental issue: the actions of the JP. It seems the JP showed a bias during trial by telling you that he had already decided he was going to convict you and that you should plead guilty. After all, he is not allowed to make up his mind until the case is closed. That in itself, goes against your right to be presumed innocent. Again, there is a lot of case law in this area so do your homework. Hopefully, you properly argued such in your appeal.
My argument wouldn't be that I was provided exact test times though, my argument is that I wasn't told there was a second test at all. According to R. v. Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution cannot withhold disclosure for the purpose of securing a conviction, as it violated the right to make a full defence and a fair trail. That is my argument, not about there not being a second test time, but the fact they made no effort to advise me of a second test time and intentionally hid that information from me, not allowing me to make a complete defence. Therefore, infringing on my
For the guilty plea, my argument would have been the fact that I had been coerced into doing so by the threat of being of facing a harsher penalty. This argument would stem from the first argument as to whether it is constitutional to force me into trial and withholding evidence, and then telling me that it appears I'll be found guilty DURING the trial to which I plead not guilty, and was in represented coercing me into a guilty plea. I would add the fact I was not represented and essentially coerced in a guilty plea mid trial. I'm arguing this because I feel I was, I had no intention of pleading guilty until he told me to take the deal, and that I was losing the case... So the plea was obviously not voluntary without coercion from the judge. It's the same as someone having a gun to your head, did you say yes I understand? Yes, but was it voluntary? - that's where it leaves reasonable doubt.
As for the presumption of innocence, do you have any idea where to start looking for case law? Like do you have one case law to reference so I can start. I always assumed that meant pre-trial, so during trial the JP has reason to sway one way or another as long as he considers all the information above him during the sentencing. He never actually convicted me, because I did ultimately plea guilty so I don't know how strong the argument would be that he was swaying, but it would definitely help my argument that I was coerced, because had the trial gone on, it was my turn to give evidence & the officer was done giving the stand, there was never any indication that the officer was trained. So, it could have been a coercion tactic by the JP to register a conviction, as I feel it was.
Anyway guys, any help is appreciated. I'm not looking for a way out after a voluntary guilty plea, because I know I'd have to fight it again of I do win the appeal and risk having a worse conviction. The only reason I want to pursue this is because I actually feel like I was cheated out of having the chance to represent myself with various tactics used by the JP & prosecutor, whether intentional or not - and being that I'm not a lawyer or paralegal, I fell for them. Right now it's about fighting for my own rights more so than the speeding ticket - as this won't even affect my insurance at my current situation so it's not even a get out of a jail free card.