Prosecutor mentality re deals, I don't get it, enlighten me

jayjonbeach
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 39
Joined:

Prosecutor mentality re deals, I don't get it, enlighten me

Unread post by jayjonbeach on

So unfortunately I have had a few tickets in the last 5 or 6 years. Thankfully Ticketcombat saved me from one or two.

Here is what I don't get though. On your first appearance, the Crown will usually offer most people a deal, ok great. Its usually a reduced fine, and often times a lesser charge with less points, ok great for people that just want an easy out and don't mind the massive insurance hike for 3 years (or if they are lucky, they are allowed 1 ticket). 95% of the people take the deal from my experience, and it saves the courts time and they collect some cash.

So a couple of times I offered to pay a ticket with a HIGHER fine, this is more money towards court costs, and whatever else this money goes to, that should be a WIN for the Crown I would have thought. Case and point, speeding ticket with 182 fine, I get offered a 80 dollar fine. I tell him its the same penalty for insurance, and offer to take a red light camera ticket instead which is 300+ dollars. They say no. I shake my head in disbelief and go home and prepare for trial. I have offered to take other things too, parking tickets, really anything that does not have the insurance hike and still has a large fine and they never go for it.

What is the deal here, does anyone know? Has anyone had any success making this kind of deal? If so what was the deal?

TIA


ynotp
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 548
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

Unread post by ynotp on

It isn't ethical to allow someone to plead guilty to something you know they didn't do. A lesser charge is based on the same series of events. For example fail to stop goes down to improper stop.


jayjonbeach
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 39
Joined:

Unread post by jayjonbeach on

Well I don't think that is "it", in the last courthouse I was in I sat near the front on purpose to see what was being offered, and it did not matter what the person did, they were ALL being offered "Disobey Sign", and the people had a wide variety of charges where some were not related or did not fit the mold as you put it, running a red light would be just as suitable in other words or even more suitable.


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Unread post by Stanton on

Ynotp is correct. I can’t speak to your personal observations, but the plea deal should somehow relate to the actual offence. Keep in mind that the Justice of the Peace could ask for a synopsis of what happened leading up to the charge, so if the offence doesn’t fit what happened, a conviction can’t be registered. In your case I don’t know what offences the Crown was pleading down to “disobey sign”, but it is a pretty big catch all for pleas.


MegaSilver
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 32
Joined:

Unread post by MegaSilver on

In my own experience, I was charged with careless for being hit from behind into the car in front of me. Prosecutor offered failure to turn left to avoid collision. Fine. I accepted it. When brought in front of JP, he asked for clarification of events from prosecutor. he then questioned them on how I could have turned left from a stopped position. Charge thrown out.


hawaii
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 45
Joined:

Unread post by hawaii on

ynotp wrote:It isn't ethical to allow someone to plead guilty to something you know they didn't do. A lesser charge is based on the same series of events. For example fail to stop goes down to improper stop.
I was in court last year to dispute a illegal right turn ticket. I was very surprised and lucky to have the fine reduced and plead guilty to " Interfering traffic", which I learned was actually not a HTA offense. Explained to me as a glorified parking ticket.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

Interfering with traffic is an HTA offence....section 170
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


hawaii
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 45
Joined:

Unread post by hawaii on

hwybear wrote:Interfering with traffic is an HTA offence....section 170
My mistake,? could it be obstructing traffic, sorry it was last year, cant recall exact wording.


iFly55
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 561
Joined:

Posting Awards

Unread post by iFly55 on



hawaii
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 45
Joined:

Unread post by hawaii on







Post Reply

Return to “Courts and Procedure”