woodensoldier wrote:

Hi guys, my court date was actually on Thursday. Got the dates mixed up but regardless, I was still prepared. This is what happened.

1. Went to court, name was on a list.

2. Waited outside the court room until we were allowed in.

3. Walked up to the prosecuter and made a deal with him. Reduced to 15 over. He actually made the deal. I didn't do anything. He asked me what my name was in a matter of 2 seconds said he would reduce it to 15.

4. The cop still hadn't arrived. The prosecuter said that cases where the cop doesn't show up are automatically thrown out. So you don't even have to enter a plea or not guilty or guilty.

5. The cop eventually arrived. Turns out that they schedule trials based on one officer. That way the cop has to show up. So all the trials that day involve that officer. Makes sense. Therefore, I think people should really abandon the thought of an officer not showing up to court. Unless he is sick or on vacation is the only way you will get lucky.

6. The judge called me up to the stand. I plead guilty and told him I can pay the fine today.

7. My trial was at 9 AM, I was out of the court by 9:30.

So for everyone who is stressed out over a speeding ticket. Don't be.

Hey, thanks for a detailed overview! I just got myself into the same situation and was just curious to see by how much your insurance premiums went up?

Flyview wrote:

^^ Thanks for the update!

Yes, this seems to be what happens on a regular basis...what I have yet to see is a recollection of a case that actually "went to trial" without a "deal" and was stayed/not guilty.

I'll give you one of those (not to hijack the thread).

Defendant was over and ticketed at 30-ish over. No reduction on the ticket. (this was about a year and 8 months ago probably).

Officer's notes were accurate and detailed, very standard. Went to trial, defendant was not offered a deal due to driving record. Upon trial, officer neglected to establish concrete that a motor vehicle was involved, neglected to mention license plate, colour and type of vehicle... basically skipped that whole section of his notes.

The officer did focus very carefully on how his radar was tested and re-tested and the specifics of visually estimating the speed and verifying it with radar, etc. etc.

Upon cross-exam, no questions were asked about the vehicle, disallowing the officer to correct his mistake. Instead cross-exam was focused on "how the radar works" and "when it was last calibrated".

Motion made for non-suit based on fact that the crown failed to establish more than simply circumstantial evidence of a motor vehicle being involved, which is a key component in establishing guilt.

Motion sustained. Charges withdrawn. Looks of utter surprise from the Crown, JP and Officer.

In this example, the officer made a simple mistake, which all of us are prone to do at some point or other. There was no worthwhile deal offered, so the worst that could happen was that the defendant would end up with what they were ticketed for. Might as well go see what happens, and keep an eye on what's being said and what isn't being said on examination-in-chief. Sometimes you get lucky.

Slyk wrote:

Flyview wrote:

^^ Thanks for the update!

Yes, this seems to be what happens on a regular basis...what I have yet to see is a recollection of a case that actually "went to trial" without a "deal" and was stayed/not guilty.

I'll give you one of those (not to hijack the thread).

Defendant was over and ticketed at 30-ish over. No reduction on the ticket. (this was about a year and 8 months ago probably).

Officer's notes were accurate and detailed, very standard. Went to trial, defendant was not offered a deal due to driving record. Upon trial, officer neglected to establish concrete that a motor vehicle was involved, neglected to mention license plate, colour and type of vehicle... basically skipped that whole section of his notes.

The officer did focus very carefully on how his radar was tested and re-tested and the specifics of visually estimating the speed and verifying it with radar, etc. etc.

Upon cross-exam, no questions were asked about the vehicle, disallowing the officer to correct his mistake. Instead cross-exam was focused on "how the radar works" and "when it was last calibrated".

Motion made for non-suit based on fact that the crown failed to establish more than simply circumstantial evidence of a motor vehicle being involved, which is a key component in establishing guilt.

Motion sustained. Charges withdrawn. Looks of utter surprise from the Crown, JP and Officer.

In this example, the officer made a simple mistake, which all of us are prone to do at some point or other. There was no worthwhile deal offered, so the worst that could happen was that the defendant would end up with what they were ticketed for. Might as well go see what happens, and keep an eye on what's being said and what isn't being said on examination-in-chief. Sometimes you get lucky.

Cool, but why would the JP be surprised? Isn't the JP the one making that decision?

Sure, but they're not really used to seeing people successfully defending themselves... The same way the officer doesn't realize he's missed something, the JP and crown often don't realize it either until someone points it out. I'm pretty sure in this case the JP was ready to find against the accused, until he brought the court's attention to that issue.

Speeding Ticket trials are won on the legal technicalities.

Like the above post, the officer has to prove that the offense was committed with a "Motor Vehicle".

If you don't know the legal technicalities then you miss many opportunities to win your case.

Here are a few of the legal technicalities to win speeding tickets

Has the case taken too long to come to court? - 11b Argument

Is the ticket correct on its face? - Motion to Quash

Was the radar "properly tested"? - There are rules that the officer has to follow

Is the officer properly qualified? - Motion for non-suit

Has the ticket been properly filed at the court? - Motion to Quash