I was driving downtown one night and as I crossed an intersection, i was seen by a police officer. I was followed thru two more intersections before i was pulled over and given a ticket for running a red light. (The first intersection that the cop spotted me crossing.)
It turns out that the intersection in question has a red light camera and I have not recieved a ticket from the camera.
Can i challenge the police officer stating that if I had truly ran the red light i would have been spotted by the camera or would that be dismissed in court.
P.S. should my first defense be that my trial date is over 12 months almost 13 months after the offense.
badman_goodfella wrote:It turns out that the intersection in question has a red light camera and I have not recieved a ticket from the camera.
I know nothing about these red light cameras....how does one know what intersection they are at? Or are they frequently moved?
It depends on the jurisdiction. Ottawa tells you which intersections have them and they even post warning signs before the intersection. Toronto has 10 cameras in rotation through 38 intersections without warnings.how does one know what intersection they are at? Or are they frequently moved?
The biggest case was Waterloo v. Yan in 2004 that defined what information the picture should have.
There may not have been a camera in the box. The camera won't take a picture unless you actually entered the intersection after the light turned red. So you won't get any evidence exonerating you from the camera or it's picture.Can i challenge the police officer stating that if I had truly ran the red light i would have been spotted by the camera
Courts allow up to 18 months from offence to trial so your chances are slim.my trial date is...almost 13 months after the offense
You need to make a disclosure request as a first step and later an 11(b) application for a stay even if your chances aren't good.
ticketcombat wrote:Courts allow up to 18 months from offence to trial so your chances are slim.
What about our right to a speedy trial? 8 months or so?
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com
Reasonable time limits are under section 11(b) of the charter. Most people who know about it usually quote R. v. Askov which established a delay limit of 6 to 8 months. But R. v. Morin established intake periods up to 10 months on top of the 6 - 8 month institutional delay of Askov.
I have a detailed explanation of what is a reasonable length of time on my website: http://www.ticketcombat.com/step4/length.php
And I included links to key legal precedents: http://www.ticketcombat.com/step4/precedents.php
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest