Radar Identified wrote:

nerd wrote:

You cannot be driving 136km/h and have any reasonable defense.

Incorrect. It is called "defence of necessity." If you or someone in the vehicle has a life-threatening emergency, that is a valid reason for speeding. It is a rare occurrence, but if the defendant is truthful, it is valid nonetheless. And defence of necessity is accepted by the courts. .

then should be considering asking a "emergency services person" for assistance...and who better to ask than the police who have you stopped. Police can also get EMS to the scene or send the EMS to a residence.

nerd wrote:

It is the prosecutor's "job" to hear you say guilty, either to the original charge or a reduced or amended charge.

I disagree with that. Although a prosecutor's job description includes accepting please, prosecuting cases, and obtaining convictions they are quasi-ministers of justice, and as such their main goal is to seek justice. The doesn't necessarily equate to getting people to plead guilty. This is spelled out in the Crown Policy Manual which says that prosecutors should only seek a conviction if (1) there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, and (2) it is in the public interest. In other words, there may be many circumstances where the just result is for the prosecutor to withdraw and as a quasi-minister of justice, that is exactly what they will do.

hwybear wrote:

then should be considering asking a "emergency services person" for assistance...and who better to ask than the police who have you stopped. Police can also get EMS to the scene or send the EMS to a residence.

Should be the case, however, last year we had a cardiac surgeon stopped for speeding en route to save a heart attack victim. The officer held him at the roadside for 10 minutes, instead of deciding to issue the ticket (or summons) at a later point in time. The surgeon was carrying his credentials. While this technically does not exactly fall under "defence of necessity," it is close. The Prosecutor, after hearing the explanation, withdrew the charge and flatly stated to the public "it was not in the public interest to pursue the charge." The heart attack victim also spoke to the Prosecutor.

nerd wrote:

There may be technicalities, but most people need legal representation to explore technicalities. In my experience, even when details of the officer's notes were grossly incorrect when compared with the defendant's testemony, they were taken as an accurate account by the court nontheless.

Many people do need legal representation, however in a lot of cases the officer covered their bases and the defendant is left to plea-bargain to a lesser speed (unless the officer already reduced it). The difference? In that case, the paralegal/lawyer costs $200+ more to achieve the same outcome. Speeding is nowhere near as complex as, say, careless driving. And, many people have successfully represented themselves on minor charges. Ultimately, it comes down to what they want to do with the information they're given.

And yes, testimony doesn't work very well for defendants in speeding cases. Just about everyone gets up there and says, more or less, this:

"I'm familiar with that route, I know the police are there, I would not speed."

"I'm a careful driver, I don't go that fast."

"I looked at my speedometer and it was nowhere close to what the officer said."

Other cases... depends on how believable the defendant's testimony is.

nerd wrote:

It is the prosecutor's "job" to hear you say guilty, either to the original charge or a reduced or amended charge. In my opinion, it is not wise to plead not guilty to the original charge and go to trial without representation unless you know how to proceed.

All depends on the comfort level of the defendant, and how well informed they are.