jsherk wrote:Awesome

Congratulations on the win!

Thanks

So just to close this chapter - I've had my defence ready, adding to it R v. WD in terms of a three pronged test, and planning to talk about judicial interference (these were things that came up in other cases I've heard, while sitting there, and was quite fitting. And then, I've seen the unseeable :) The judge went through my transcript, and told the Crown, that there is nothing to discuss here - that there has been a very clear miscarriage of justice in my case, and that he intends to bring the standards by which it was tried, to judicial review. I was given an acquittal, and basically didn'...

Just found something interesting, by starting to re-read the transcript. After being booted out of the court room, to have the officer explain his shorthand to me, I came back in, and said what I said, but then a debate on a deal with the Crown has ensued, and the JP has said "so are you prepared to go to trial or not?" - I've never responded to this, because again he kept interrupting!

Interesting or not? (i.e. useful or not )

Hypothetically this means I couldn't proceed, as I couldn't come up with proper defence right there and then, but was forced into doing this (?)

To answer both questions: I took the stand, and I've offered evidence, describing the road conditions, and the events leading to the eventual stop. I was interrupted multiple times (just as I was interrupted during the cross examination), and then told that if I've nothing more to say, I can stand down. The JP also went into a lengthy rant about how laser technology is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and how its used to guide bombs and missiles, to kill people. The argument of bias is certainly interesting - thank you very much - wonder if the appeal justice would buy it - will find out...

I have an appeal coming up, on a speeding ticket (HTA 128).

The reason for my appeal is that the JP in the original trial said that I've provided no evidence, whereas I've really provided plenty.

Any case law suggestions to rely upon, in my appeal?

@bend - the JP has agreed, on record, with me being entitled to a typed version and an explanation of the shorthand. The reason I bring it up is because usually they'll just have the officer pull you aside go through it with you right then and there. It's a lot easier than the alternative for both parties. I'm not sure why it wasn't offered. If it's something that wasn't mentioned until after that first court date, they'd probably have you explain why it wasn't brought up while the officer was available in the same room. But as long as you've already brought it up, then I guess you shouldn't ...

@bend - the JP has agreed, on record, with me being entitled to a typed version and an explanation of the shorthand.

@highwaystar - thank you.

@screeech - this was discussed in another thread I've started 6 months ago, specifically relating to that particular fatal flaw. At the end, it comes down to the school of thought to which the JP subscribes, thus potentially resulting in a need for an appeal. The issue was addressed in Khoshael years ago, the city of London case subsequently, and most recently by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Farah and Mirza.

Folks, My alleged offence is rather simple - speeding 134km/h in a 100km/h zone (quoted from the ticket). Offence took place in Nov 2015. First appearance in May 2016. Asked for disclosure, and 2.5 weeks before 1st appearance got a few pages from the radar manual, and a photocopy of the officer's notes. At the first appearance I've stated that sending me disclosure 2.5 weeks before the trial doesn't work, blah blah. Case was adjourned until this coming Thursday (13/10). Between 1st appearance (May) and now (October), I sent 5 disclosure requests, asking for a typed version of the officer's not...

I've decided not to risk it, given what I've seen and heard the JP do for the first little while today, so I've gone the route of getting an adjournment charged to the prosecution, based on the so called disclosure I've received 2 weeks before the trial.

The JP said I shouldn't expect to ever see an entire radar operating manual, but that my other points are valid. With this in mind, they've given me a trial date which falls short of a year (1 week less than 11 months after the original offence date), so I'm not sure how much I can play the 11b game...

I've done my share of digging on the fatal flow, prior to jsherk's reply, and I guess what causes me concern is that the issue was addressed in Khoshael years ago, the city of London case subsequently, and most recently by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Farah and Mirza.

The Khoshael reference specifically says that there is no authority to such omissions, so it sounds like everything greatly depends on the JP.

I think I will still go, and have a look if the cop is there - if he isn't, then we're good, and if he is, I can always walk away and go home.

Brilliant, thank you very much for the quick response

This may be a stupid question, however how would I find out I've been convicted (if the JP doesn't notice the error) - do they have to send me a notice of conviction?

Wow, the speed of everyone's answers is highly appreciated (as the trial is tomorrow). Here is my ticket - all thoughts are appreciated.

Folks, My alleged offence is rather simple - speeding 134km/h in a 100km/h zone (quoted from the ticket). After reading all the vast troves of info here. I still have 2 pressing questions, in advance of my upcoming trial (where I may ask for an adjournment, to prepare my defence, as unexpectedly, I've received partial disclosure, a couple of weeks prior to the trial): 1. The ticket states "Highway Traffic Act" in the "contrary to" section - doesn't it have to list a specific subsection of the HTA to be valid? If I'm correct, then its invalid? 2. In the notes, the officer is...