So I'm 19 no prior tickets and no tickets now.

Heading back from the airport at 5am after dropping a friend off.

the road I'm heading down has little to no light. I'm literally in the middle of the boonies. I notice a vehicle approaching me from behind. At this point I'm doing about 90 kph in a 80.

He continues to follow me for quite some time. DDue to my occupation we've been briefed on safety and to be cautious of vehicles following us. I thought nothing of it. He started getting closer and closer to the point were I felt endangered. Phone was in my glove box so I had no way of calling 911. If Ihad sslowedfdown I felt as he was going to hit me. At this point I'm doing a out 55 to 65 kph over the limit and he's still right behind me. 10 mins from work and I knew they're would be security guards at the gates. This was my safe spot and that's all were I wanted to be. I then see a police car coming to wards my with its lights on. I pull over and this cop makes a u turn and pulls in behindme as iI'm pulled over. Charged with stunt driving 66kph over the limit. I told the officer I was endangered for my life and that this person behind me was chasing me. Was told it was an off duty cop in his own personal vehicle. Got my discloser and it says the reason I was called in was because I was accused of being an impaired driver. No sobriety test was done on me and no questions were asked about this. Went to court and got offered a plea deal of 49 over with a 1 month suspension and 350$ in fines. I've got quite a bit of info for my defence...opinions?

The logical thing to do would be to slow down, pull to the side as much as possible, and try to let the car behind you pass, not continue speeding more and more. They are going to bring up this fact during your trial.

You have an outstanding deal on the table. I don't know if you'd want to risk taking this to trial, but that's your call.

Well not sure what the impaired thing has to do with anything. Were you charged with an impaired? Or is that mentioned in the officers notes? Or is it just something the prosecutor told you?

Do the officers notes mention anything about the off duty police officer?

How did the officer get your speed? Radar? Pace you? Taking the word of the off duty police officer?

And a question I have is if an off duty officer can actually speed like that?

Well not sure what the impaired thing has to do with anything. Were you charged with an impaired? Or is that mentioned in the officers notes? Or is it just something the prosecutor told you?

Do the officers notes mention anything about the off duty police officer?

How did the officer get your speed? Radar? Pace you? Taking the word of the off duty police officer?

And a question I have is if an off duty officer can actually speed like that?

_____________________________

His name is stated at the start of her notes but nothing mention about it being an off duty cop. When i was pulled over i was informed that it was an off duty cop. No witness statements made from him. Im assuming he was mile markering me or pacing. Off duty cop in his personal vehicle, hes not aloud to do what he did. Standard protocol for an on duty cop speeding is to have sirens lights strobes etc.

Okay so what about this impaired comment? Where did that come from?

And how did she get you for speeding? Radar? Laser? Paced you? Or took word of off duty officer?

So just to confirm the officer who stopped you wasnt using radar to obtain your speed? If your speed was determined by the off duty officer, theyll be required to testify at your trial and you also should have received some type of disclosure from them (i.e. notes or a statement). The off duty officer would also have to convince the Courts that they were accurately able to determine your speed. Im guessing they paced you, but theyll need to convince the Courts that their speedometer was accurate. Police vehicle speedometers are typically "certified" as being accurate whereas civilian vehicles are not

You have a bit of an interesting choice. If the Crown cant prove its case it might be worth taking a gamble and going to trial. Of course being convicted of 49 over is a lot better than 50+ over in terms of insurance implications, so the plea deal could be the safer bet.

Now regarding your justification for speeding. To be quite honest, it does not sound reasonable nor do I think it would be accepted by the Courts. Speeding is an absolute liability offence and any breach of such an offence requires meeting the highest thresholds imaginable. You have to show a true and immediate danger where no other option existed. You now also have the problem that by testifying youre admitting to the offence for which youve been charged. So if your justification isnt accepted, youve now strengthened what could be a weak case against you. Lastly, police are allowed to speed, even off duty and without lights and sirens, if theyre engaged in some type of police function. If the officer was concerned about your driving, this would count.

You said you have quite a bit of info for your defence. Is there something else youve left out from your original post?

It could also be that the marked cruiser had radar and got a reading as it was coming towards you. Your defence of feeling that your life was in danger will not fly. If you were being shot at, or had been rammed maybe but a car that had no negative Intel attached to it will not be accepted. You should have pulled over or at the least turned off the road at your first opportunity. You could also have called 911.