I wanted to know the rules in court if more than 1 police officer was involved in a speeding citation. For example, if two officers were present at the time of the alleged offence, but it's unclear which officer tested the laser device or used it. Only one officer appears on the front of the ticket, but another officer is referenced in the notes as having tested the equipment and sharing it at the time of the offense. Only one showed up in court in BC, but I was still convicted. I am appealing, but under oath my officer testified that she herself tested the unit. I did ask if she shared her unit. She replied, Yes. My cross examination was cut short and could not ask her to explain the dicrepancy regarding the testing of the unit.

On a side note, I never received the model or serial number of the speeding unit in disclosure. My officer said she could not recall the information since it was not written in her notes. She also testified that there was no log or record of it. In addition, she couln't say exactly what time she tested the unit because she didn't write it down. I'm in shock that the Justice of Peace would give me a conviction with so many potholes in the cross examination. Can I submit the copy of the officer's notes as evidence in an appeal even if I didn't question her on the this particular discrepancy on the transcript? Also , my judge wouldn't allow me to complete my cross examination because he said there wasn't enough time...

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.

I just didn't know if the notes are really "new evidence" since the officer reads them during their testimony. They were also disclosed to me at the hearing. The problem is the discrepancy between what was written and what was said during the officer's testimony and cross examination. There are some suspicious contradictions, but not all were articulated on the transcript during cross examination. The notes would be needed as evidence to expose all the discrepancies.