Sat in the back of the court...cop hunts me down, wants to know if I want to talk to him...."no" I said. Finally, my trial is called. The Crown hands me disclosure 1 minute prior to trial.
I stated to the JP that prior to me pleading I needed to make a motion for adjourment since the Crown handed me disclosure 2 minutes ago and in order to make a full answer and defence I needed more time. She looked down her glasses at the Crown and we picked a new date.
Then I stated that I wanted to make another motion. Based on reading the disclosure, the Crown was going to rely on radar evidence, that I wanted it known that I was going to make another disclosure request, for the radar manual....
The Crown states that he will not do that. He then qualified it and stated only if I could prove there was a reason... I stated that the jurisprudence was pretty clear that he had to do that. I stated that in Millar et al V. Thunder Bay the Crown had a duty to disclose a radar manual. The JP said well there's lot of case law etc....the Crown stated that I would have to make a motion for disclosure. The JP stated that I would be entitled only to certain parts of the manual...its a huge book....I stated that i have seen operators manuals and they are not large books and I should be able to see it all....
it seems pretty clear that they have to do this. But I guess in the backwaters of Southwestern Ontario they figure they don't have to do this ;-(
So what are my next steps?
I figured I would file a secondary disclosure request for the manual.
Just because, I think I will file a FOI (freedom of information) request for the manual as there are several cases where it's very clear that they have to give up the manual ..... and I was one of the people who first challenged a Police Service for their refusal and won several years ago!
For my next appearance, do I have to file a motion in advance. Is this a verbal motion, or a written one? When deadlines are involved with this. What is the format for the documentation I have to provide?
Any help would be appreciated.
I watched a Paralegal take a speeding ticket to trial...the cop was a radar instructor etc...there were two vehicles moving away from the cop and one passed the other...the paralegal asked how the cop was certain that the speed he read was from the pickup truck, and not the car...the cop stated that the radar picks the target based on speed, proximity and mass.....I wanted to standup and shout bullsh!t.... it make pick the target based on speed and proximity but mass has absolutely nothing to do with it. Mass is a property of how much matter there is in an object....I think the other property is equivalent Radar Cross section... ie how big a radar target the vechicle presents...ie an 18 wheeler will present a much bigger radar cross section than a Honda Civic.... (at least in simple terms). And yes I have a back ground in radar (not police traffic radar) but as an Air Force pilot, I have used it a lot, the principles are the same for radar whether its on a car or a CF18....
anyhow, I was not impressed with the Radar Instructor's understanding of radar...
"The answer is yes, moving on to the next question", in my best teacher voice.PaulinCanada wrote:Bueller, Bueller.....
Correct, the more vehicle there is to hit the larger the return signal will be.Mass is a property of how much matter there is in an object....I think the other property is equivalent Radar Cross section... ie how big a radar target the vehicle presents...ie an 18 wheeler will present a much bigger radar cross section than a Honda Civic.... (at least in simple terms).
Anyway, file an other disclosure motion and specifically ask for access to or a copy of the user's manual for the radar unit. If you don't get it or as before are handed a copy a minute before trial then you can motion for a stay due to the Crown's ineptitude. You may want to word it differently.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com