I was charged with Section 144 (18) running a red light. I can assure you that when I enetered the intersection it was yellow and I was at pace with another vehicle neck to neck with that car about 3 ft in front of me as if it was a close finish.

The officer sounded the horn and motioned to me but made a point to tell the other drivern once we stopped that he ran a red light and proceeded towards me. During this interaction, he could have easily asked both of us to pull to the side and actually was able to have a conversation with the first driver. He stated that I ran the red light at which time I didn't but did acelerate to pass through when I when I approached the intersection as it turned yellow just like the car beside me. After his claims of me runing the red light I asked him why he had let the other car through. He stated that he was going to charge the first driver but chose me because I was driving fast. I asked if he had radar and asked him how fast was I going then in which he stated no and that stated "he knows that I was going fast".

Do I even have a chance in court over this?

How does one make an assessment based on "he knows I was going fast" AND, why did he let the other driver go scott free!

Is it because it would have been 2 versus 1?

Although it is about running the red light, how do I fight this?

Do I stand a chance in court over this as I find this ridicoulos that you saw with your own two eyes an offence if you want to call it one but allowed the other to get away with a warning.

The officer used his discretion to issue the other driver a warning and he decided to give you a ticket for it. That certain is unfortunate for you, but here's nothing improper about that.

The officer's assertion that you were going fast or accelerating through the intersection is not improper either. He is not saying you were speeding or that you were going any specific speed, he's just saying that you were accelerating or going faster than other vehicles. That's not overly relevant to the charge of red light fail to stop though, it just helps you understand why he chose to give you the ticket in stead of a warning.

If you do not believe the light was actually red before you entered the intersection then you can offer that as your evidence to the prosecutor or to the JP in court. They will then assess your evidence against the officer's evidence, which will presumably be that he was in a position to see that the light was red before you entered the intersection. They will then determine if they are left with reasonable doubt.

Thanks for the feedback

Then how do you prove to the JP that when you entered the intersection that the light was yellow and not red. What rebutle or evidence can I provide to prove that I or both didn't enter on a Red?

I'm finding this hard to swallow that he took the time to allow the first driver to be let go when he had both of us there at the same time. Regardless, any suggestions on how to prove driving through a Red when it was Yellow? It's almost like it's his word versus mine and he has me beat because the other individual isn't there.

Do I sit at the intersection and time the speed versus how many seconds it takes to pass from Yellow to Red?

Your feedback is appreciated. Thanks

VROD wrote:

It's almost like it's his word versus mine and he has me beat because the other individual isn't there.

Not almost - it's exactly like that!

All you can do is present your evidence and be firm if that's what you believe happened. Other evidence like light cycle times is irrelevant because you can't prove what it was then by what it is now.

If you're firm, clear and consistent on your evidence the JP will apply the test in R v. W.D. for assessing credibility and determining reasonable doubt. That's about all you can do.