49 over in a fifty

Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:58 pm

Re: 49 over in a fifty

by: Milgarded on
Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:21 pm

R v depoe 2012 oncj 374.....third last section...." Rules in favour of case law which supports the use of relevant portions of the manual for the purpose of full answer supersedes both arguments in favour of copyright and in favour of having the author of the manual document present for cross examination" Guess its not case law but a ruling on the subject. Man my typing is unbelievably bad lol
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:30 am

Posting Awards

by: argyll on
Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:22 pm

The case deals only with the disclosure of the testing portion of the manual. That is disclosed routinely. There is no new information here:

Courts decision with regard to legal arguments

42. The court rules the portion of the radar manual with regard to testing procedures on the Atlanta laser is relevant to full answer and defence with regard to a speeding charge, and therefore should be produced without reservation to copyright or the need to cross-examine the author of the document. The bar for the test to establish relevance is set reasonably low and that bar has been met in this instance.

43. The court finds itself in favour of the case law which supports the use of the relevant portion of the radar manual for the purposes of full answer and defence supersedes both arguments in favour of copyright, and in favour of having the author of the radar manual document present for cross examination purposes.

44. Finally, the court, cognizant of the case law as it pertains to manufacturers recommendations, finds in favour of the premise that these are simply that: recommendations to be followed as to intent, if not to the exact letter. It would appear in this case that Const. Tomlinson followed the intent of laser manufacturers recommendations by measuring distances from the rear of her cruiser – using a tape measure to establish accuracy. That she did not use the manufacturers recommended distance of 45 metres does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the laser was not working properly on the date in question.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:13 pm

It's a Justice of the Peace decision which means it is NOT binding on any other Justice of the Peace.

Most ONCJ level cases are Justice of the Peace.

Sometimes you will come across an ONCJ level case that is an appeal with a Judge. These cases ARE binding on all Justice of the Piece.
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++
User avatar
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:21 am

Posting Awards

by: bobajob on
Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:04 am

jsherk wrote:Yes there are going to be issues with three people testifying about speed which is why I suggested a 50/50 chance of it working. What they say and how they say it will be important to the JP's decision. If it was just the driver testifying himself then the chances are pretty much 0 that JP will believe driver over officer. Add a couple more witnesses though, and maybe (MAYBE) JP will believe them.

The op agreed he was speeding about 15 over but was not speeding at 49 over so that was the issue was trying to bring the speed down.
gotcha :)
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
Post a Reply

Return to “Exceeding the speed limit by 30 to 49 km/h”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest