With regard to lying to an officer being grounds for an obstruction charge, EVERYONE lies to police. Why is it they never charge the liars in a traffic accident? We all know that in a two person accident there is at least one liar and maybe two. I had the misfortune of falling victim to one of these liars a while ago....the officer chose to believe the liar and charge me. It cost me a two day trial and $15,000 in legal fees. At trial, it became obvious....pathetically so.....that the other driver was lying. Why did the police not go back and charge him with obstruction? When the truth came out, why did they not go back and charge him like they should have done in the first place? That never happens. Ever seen it done?

Lying is not necessarily obstruction .

Obstruction under s. 129 states :

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

Just because you weren't convicted at a trial doesn't necessarily mean the other people lied. At the end of the day the officer conducted his investigation into the collision and formed grounds to charge you with an offence. Its likely you exercised your right to a trial and happened to put up a defense and were acquitted of the accusation(s).

People have their own perceptions of the truth. Different angles an accident is viewed at, for example, can change things dramatically. This does not make one side lying and the other being truthful. Both sides honestly believe they are telling the truth, as they know it to be. That's why we have a trier of fact, to make a determination of guilt, or innocence, based on the facts presented to them. If someone is flat out lying, on the stand, under oath or affirmation, then they are committing the criminal offence of perjury. I do believe there should be more of these people charged.

Nanuk wrote:

Lying is not necessarily obstruction .

Obstruction under s. 129 states :

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

Just because you weren't convicted at a trial doesn't necessarily mean the other people lied. At the end of the day the officer conducted his investigation into the collision and formed grounds to charge you with an offence. Its likely you exercised your right to a trial and happened to put up a defense and were acquitted of the accusation(s).

It is a sad fact that in our legal system, people are not held to account for the damage they cause. PC's are free to conduct shoddy investigations and make determinations that they aren't qualified to make, when the prudent course would have been to call in an officer trained in accident reconstruction. The Crown buddies up to witnesses that are free to say whatever they darn well please to get themselves off the hook and even coached by the crown. And the accused can't say anything at roadside for fear of it being used against him.

Ahhh, but not to worry...justice will prevail right? Yeah....maybe.....if the accused has enough money. Then the accused is the victim because a cop felt he needed to lay a charge 15 minutes after he arrived at an accident scene. If that cop was held accountable for acquittals, he might have taken more care. If witnesses are held accountable for lying, they might think twice before trying to save their own skin.

screeech wrote:

Both sides honestly believe they are telling the truth, as they know it to be. .

Hahahahaha. That's a good one schreech.

@rank

So it is very important to understand what information the law says you are required to give. So if you are doing something in Ontario that requires a license (driving, hunting) then you are required to provide that license when asked.

In addition to your license, when driving you are required to also produce your insurance and registration when asked.

Also, when being charged with an offence of any kind, you are required to identify yourself when asked to do so. Identifying yourself can mean just verbally providing the information they ask for, although the only information you MUST give them when asked, is your name, address and date of birth.

So if you forget your license at home, the officer will of course ask you to identify yourself. I would suggest you do not lie and that you do identify yourself correctly to avoid further charges.

Just remember to never volunteer anything and always wait to be asked for it:

"Do I have to give that to you?"

"Can I be charged with something else if I do not give it to you?"

"Alright here it is, but it is NOT voluntary and I am only giving it to you because I am required too."

jsherk wrote:

"Alright here it is, but it is NOT voluntary and I am only giving it to you because I am required too."

I love it when people tell me that -- mmmkay...