I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
1) does the prosecutor have the obligation to obtain these documents, or at least direct me as where to obtain them?
2) what is the best thing to do in the trial coming up very soon?
Can I request JP to postpone the trial until the documents are obtained?
What do I lose if I let the trial go ahead?
You won't get those. The information is not readily available to the prosecutor and court decisions have stated the prosecution does not need to provide them. You have every right to cross-examine a police officer as to his or her qualifications, but you won't get any documentation.
Do you have the officer's notes and any evidence the prosecution intends to use against you?
Yes. I already got it in my first disclosure request. But I did not get everything in my second request. So now I have to challenge his notes and charges.
What are the latest court decisions saying that police need not produce the calibration record to prove the proper functioning of the device ? (as some earlier court decisions appear to rule the contrary)
What does an officer usually do to test his device? (as he said he tested the radar before and after)
I don't know the names of the cases, but others here may.
All the officer has to do to test the device is to push the TEST button. He or she must do that at the start of his or her shift and at the end. The time and result of the test must be annotated in the officer's notebook. The case for this requirement is Schlesinger.
Schlesinger is not an appeal court decision and isn’t binding on any other court.
I think its based on the testing instruction in the manual. Ex, the manual for the radar used in my case specifies to do a moving test at a legal speed against the vehicle speedometer. So if it comes to trial I will be asking if officer performed that part of the test as per the manual.
That's true. My understanding, however, based on a number of posts I've read here and one case that I saw while waiting for my own a couple of years ago, is that JP's rely on it and apply it.
R v Chair and R v Vancrey plus others speaks to testing. Both are OCA decisions.
Most courts rely on what the testing procedure says in the manual. Some say it’s not necessary for a test after. It all depends on what make and model are being used. Even then I have seen some leeway in some of the testing required, depending on the type of radar.
So what would be the chances of winning any speeding offence based upon what has been stated here ?
Speeding is hard to beat. Doing so requires creating some doubt in the officer's testimony (e.g., which car he or she identified, how he or she did so, whether there were any circumstances that could have affected the radar, etc.).
I cannot find the document of "R v Chair". Can somebody give me more information for this case such as its Court document # and/or the link to this document.
Unlike several posts that claim the manual of Genesis II Select has got rid of Tracking History in 2010, I still find it discussed in the manual I have (2010 Canadian version).
Do I miss anything?
Thanks everybody for the information.
Try canlii.org to find cases.
2010 isn’t the current manual for the Genesis II Select. Rev 21/June 2017 is the current one.
I only found the 2012 manual from the Internet.
Does anybody have a copy or a link to the 2017 June version?
I need the Genesis II Select Directional Manual (Canadian).
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest