Speeding 45 Over, Incomplete Disclosure

vojkeBDP
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined:

Speeding 45 Over, Incomplete Disclosure

Unread post by vojkeBDP on

Hello, I recieved a speeding ticket 45 over (was not going that fast) with no reduction, I requested disclosure (certificate of conformance, Industry Canada, calibration), the prosecution believes it is not necessary for me to have. I argued in trial that I needed an adjournment because the disclosure they gave me was incomplete and needed more time to prepare for a proper defence and I gave tons of good arguments why the certificates are important. The JP gave an adjournment 4 months (the prosecution needed that much time) in order to do a proper motion to decide whether this is necessary to have or not.

I have a few questions and concerns:

1. Why did they not decide whether the documents I requested was necessary during the first trial? (I made a motion before the arraignment.)

2. The JP said she disqualified herself, what does that mean exactly?

3. Should I get a lawyer, what should I do?

Thank you.


User avatar
Decatur
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 697
Joined:

Posting Awards

Moderator

Unread post by Decatur on

The Justice may have had a conflict of interest of some sort and couldn't continue. (She may know someone involved) You are responsible to prove that those items are necessary for your defence. You're not likely to get a certificate of conformance from the prosecutor or the police because they don't control those documents in the first place. And disclosure of a calibration certificate is very rare. You may want to seek some legal counsel (either a para-legal or lawyer)


User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined:
Contact:

Unread post by Simon Borys on

The topic of "supporting documents" for the accuracy of the radar (i.e. calibration certificates, conformance documents, etc) has been discussed on this forum before. The thing you have to remember is that the crown is not required to prove the charge with absolute certainty. In other words, they don't necessarily need to prove that the device that calibrated the device that calibrated the device that calibrated the device, etc, etc, that calibrated the radar was properly calibrated. That would be tantamount to requiring proof to absolute certainty.

It's usually sufficient for the officer to say that they tested the device and it appeared to be working properly and they used it to confirm (and obtain the precise speed of) a vehicle which appeared to their eyes to be traveling above the posted speed limit.

Obviously if you can raise specific issues that put the sufficiency of this evidence into question you can be acquitted.

Similarly, if you can raise issues that put the accuracy of the device or its calibration into issue you may be entitled to get some of those documents you requested. The prosecutions constitutional obligation is to provide all documents that are "not clearly irrelevant" and obviously they take the position that they have done so and that the documents you are seeking ARE clearly irrelevant. Now you can dispute that by preparing the proper motion for disclosure.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


vojkeBDP
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined:

Unread post by vojkeBDP on

Hey guys, thanks for the input. But what do you mean "conflict of interest" ? Why couldn't the JP decide right then whether those documents are necessary. I'm not asking for calibration for calibration for calibration device, etc, etc.. Just the calibration for radar, conformance, and IC certificate, which I heard are all very easy to obtain.

And you are absolutely right Simon, what made me raise the issue to get these certificates is because I truely believe that I wasn't going that fast and also the fact that the police officer was not going as slow (10 under the speed limit) as stated in his notes (he was using a moving radar by the way), meaning my speed would be much greater than it actually was (closing speed - patrol speed = target speed). Now this could be due to a cosine error since my speed was measured both going on a downhill parabola in opposite directions. Now do I have to make the officer state somehow that he believed that he wasn't going 10 under the speed limit. Would I have to cross examine him? How would I dispute this?
Thanks again.


bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1153
Joined:

Posting Awards

Moderator

Unread post by bend on

vojkeBDP wrote:Hey guys, thanks for the input. But what do you mean "conflict of interest" ? Why couldn't the JP decide right then whether those documents are necessary. I'm not asking for calibration for calibration for calibration device, etc, etc.. Just the calibration for radar, conformance, and IC certificate, which I heard are all very easy to obtain.
The Justice of the Peace disqualified herself for whatever reason in order for you to receive a fair trial. A common issue is they may know someone involved in your case outside of the courts, whether it be an officer or someone else. I'm just speculating.

She didn't make a decision on the documents for that very reason. Once she heard the arguments and realized nothing could be settled between the parties, she removed herself and ordered a new date where a new judge could hear both sides and decide on whether the documents are a reasonable request or not.






Post Reply

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