Search found 2111 matches

Possibly. Might be worth requesting disclosure to see what the officer's notes say. He would have to be able to articulate that the reading he obtained was your vehicle.

Hard to know why the officer was asking those particular questions. Could be to confirm ID, test sobriety or just part of some other investigation (i.e. complaint involving vehicle similar to yours). People who are lying usually have a hard time answering more then two or three questions in a row truthfully and keeping their answers straight.

At ...

I don't think that would be a valid defence in Court. The law is quite clear in that you're required to pull over. I think especially given that it was still 3 KM to the scene makes it especially hard to justify. The paramedics are allowed to speed and can make up for any time it might take you to pull over and stop. I can certainly see their ...

Just in regards to the officer in uniform, it is the norm for police to have their firearms with them in the Courtroom and be in uniform for that matter.

As for the Bible, if there is a next time (and hopefully not as a defendant) simply say you want to affirm.

2) I think your request is complete but your asking for things that don't exist. There won't be any witness statements nor any defendant statements unless you wrote something out for the officer. You probably also won't get typed notes unless the written ones are actually illegible.
3) Possible, but two things. First, radar is typically directional ...

I'm somewhat familiar with the case law you cite but I'm not sure it fits your situation. My understanding is that the JP has a duty to aid in the proper conduct of your defence and outline the steps of a trial (R v Tran outlines this) and explain your options at each step. The ruling also states however that the JP cannot go so far as to act as ...

Based on what you've said, I personally don't think you have grounds for appeal. The JP's role isn't to assist you in presenting your defence or to advise you how best to proceed. It may have been more favourable in your opinion to introduce your photos in cross versus taking the stand, but I don't see that being grounds for appeal in itself.

You ...

I know what you're saying, but the limit would be whatever is posted on the highway, even if there is no sign present where you turned on. I can think of a few highways near where I live which have limits lower then 80, yet the speed isn't posted at the intersections where motorists enter the highway.

I think you misunderstood the section you've quoted. It's referring to the fact that when there is a change in the speed limit (i.e. a 80 drops down to a 50 zone), the speed limit sign should have the word "BEGINS" affixed below it. The requirement for where and how often speed limit signs need to be posted is directly above that section (600 or ...

The strength of the witness statements certainly could be enough to convict in Court. It will really depend on the Justice of the Peace and if he/she finds their evidence to be credible and accurate.

1) $100-$1,000 fine and/or 30 days in jail and possible 6 month suspension
2) $100-$1,000 fine and/or 30 days in jail and possible 6 month suspension
3) $110 fine

Lower end of the fine is more likely on a first offence, and jail time is very unlikely

pissoffme wrote:He was lying...

You stated in your initial post that you started early. That would mean you committed the offence.

1) There's always a chance, but it's more likely they will then won't.
2) You can prior to trial.
3) The Crown may consent to an adjournment if you had a final exam or something exigent, but not for just a regular school day.

Again, 170 doesn't apply.

1) It's really up to you to weigh the guarantee of a plea deal versus taking a chance and forcing a trial. Officer not showing is slim. Lack of disclosure is also a bit of a gamble. Even if they don't provide adequate disclosure for the speeding charge, they could simply withdraw it and still proceed with the driving under suspension charge. It's ...

You can still decide to plead guilty to the original charge on the trial date. The Crown will only amend the charge if you insist on having a trial.

The date on your summons is actually a first attendance date, not a trial date. It will be an opportunity for you to advise the Court/Crown how you wish to proceed. If you decide to fight the charges, a trial will be scheduled for a different date down the road. Quite often disclosure will be provided on your first attendance date.

You're required to leave sufficient room from vehicles in front of you that you can come to a full stop if needed. Section 170 would not apply since she wasn't parking, but waiting to turn around if I follow your explanation.

To the best of my knowledge, new evidence cant be brought up on appeal. Appeal trials are simply to address any errors in law that the Justice of the Peace may have made based on the evidence already given.

In regards to requiring both officers at trial, I really cant say since I have no experience with B.C. traffic laws.

The speed wont be amended unless you actually have a trial in Court. If you decide to plead guilty prior to a trial, it will be for the reduced speed shown on the ticket (20 over).

Since your ticket was already reduced by the officer, its very unlikely the Crown would offer any further reduction. The fact that it was exam day wont garner any ...

It really varies from one insurance provider to the next. Speeding by fifty or more over the limit is usually considered a major conviction, which could result in a 15-25%+ increase. It's still better than a stunt driving conviction and/or suspension which could actually double your rates.

It's still best to contact your provider (anonymously if ...

If your representative recommends accepting the deal, it's probably your best option. They would hopefully know if there's any chance of beating the charge at trial or not. While the speeding offence is still a pretty serious conviction, you're looking at a lower fine and probably no suspension unless due to demerit points.

Depending on the roadway layout, youre not always expected to pull over to the right.

Section 159 of the Highway Traffic Act states the following:
"...when on a roadway having more than two lanes for traffic and designated for the use of one-way traffic, as near as is practicable to the nearest curb or edge of the roadway and parallel therewith ...

Some jurisdictions, particularly busier ones, will simply withdraw the charge if you can show the Crown you had valid insurance at the time of the stop. Technically your friend still committed the offence of not providing proof of this at the time of the stop, but I think at the very least the Crown would offer a reduced fine in exchange for a ...

Normally you have very little to lose fighting a ticket except time wasted in Court. Reduced speeding tickets are a bit of an exception since they can be raised back up to the original amount at trial. Still though, theres nothing wrong with requesting a trial and reviewing disclosure. Just don't actually go ahead with a trial unless you think you ...

darshan.4 wrote:however, doesnt demerit points determine how risky a driver is to insure.

No. It's based on the number of convictions and severity of the offence.

The size of the road isn't really relevant, just the fact that it was private property. Section 142(1) covers turning off a roadway into a private drive, but not vice versa. I'm just wondering if where you turned could count as an intersection, otherwise the charge is incorrect.

Kind of an odd section to be charged under. I'm trying to remember if that section applies when you're leaving a private drive. You probably should have been charged under section 139(1), fail to yield from private drive.

Is there anyway to separate the two charges, because i do have the pink insurance slip. Just didnt have it with me at the time.
Any help is appreciated.

If both charges were issued at the same time, both would be dealt with in Court at the same time. You could plead guilty to one and not guilty to the other, but you can't have two separate ...

soop wrote: Now how do I beat the driving while suspended?

In all seriousness, really look into that. If you're convicted, you face another 6 month driving suspension.