Your opinion is he was off by 26 km/h. He would probably say different. That's why we have a court process.

The last thing you want to do if you have another trial would be to admit that you were speeding on the stand.

Rank;

That is Bloomfield isn't it?

Not really sure which one has the opinion, since II had the benefit of thespeedometer. Your point about taking the stand is well taken. Will just have to see how that goes. I remain skeptical about a conviction for 72 being fait acompli because I admit to 59.

If you admit to speeding (even only 59) and the officer says you were going 72 then most likely you will get the 72 charge. If you did not testify at all, you would still get the 72 charge but you saying you were speeding just helps their case.

Best case is the JP drops it to the 59 but I have been to court enough times and never seen them do that. They always go with the officers "radar" speed.

So there is no point getting on the stand and admitting you were speeding at all.

You should just work on the cross-examination to bring reasonable doubt to officers testimony so you have a chance to win.

Remember you are not guilty of anything right now. You are innocent until proven guilty in the court. So make them work for it.

Sometimes I find it helps to use an extreme example to make a point.

Let's say the officer charged me with 1,228 km/hr in a 50 zone. I plead not guilty to 1,228 and I put myself on the stand and testify that I was only traveling 80 in a 50. I know this to be a 100% true statement beyond a reasonable doubt because the officer testified under cross that he did not hear a sonic boom. Will the judge still find me guilty of 1228 in a 50?

My point being, in my view, the physical evidence in my case trumps officer testimony of when he pressed his radar button.

As decatur says, that is why we have courts. We shall see. If I am granted a new trial that is.

Well you are welcome to try and I hope you succeed.

I will be surprised if you succeed, but I still hope you can do it.

I've heard it said about other trials, that a defendant can't win if he doesn't take the stand. I think the logic is that the judge/jury need to hear that you didn't do it. If you can't take the stand in your own defense it doesn't look good I suppose. Not sure what's different about traffic court.

I'm more concerned about navigating the procedural minefield than I am about what happens during questioning.

Again, I appreciate your advice and we'll see. All the best laid plans are often for naught when a surprise happens. A lawyer I respect told me once that you can never tell what will happen at trial. There is always a surprise. I think he was worried about me folding under cross but the surprise that day was it was the officer that folded LOL. There is no place to hide on that stand. There are liars and cheats everywhere among us but the laws of physics have no prejudice, no career goals, no axe to grind, no quota, no ego.

BTW, The Stig, I replied to you by PM. Not sure if it went through or not. Still learning this message board format.

The difference is that we are talking about an ABSOLUTE LIABILITY speeding offence... there is no acceptable reasons why you did it (unless your life was in danger). Either yes you were speeding or no you were not speeding. End of story.

Therefore any testimony that suggests you were speeding, even 1km/h over, is testimony against yourself and you might as well have just paid the ticket up front and not wasted your time coming to court.

My exeprience from going to court with Highway Traffic Act Provincial Offences is that 95% of people that testify, end up helping the prosecution and not themselves. And many wins that I have seen, did not involve the person testifying... it was all about bringing reasonable doubt to the officers testimony.

Read this:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7032.html

If you choose to take the stand, here's something similar to what might me said.

CP: So you were speeding 72 in a 50.

SR: No, I was doing 59 in a 50.

CP: How are you certain you were doing 59?

SR: My speedometer said I was traveling at 59 km/hour.

CP: Is your speedometer a digital speedometer, or analog speedometer?

SR: It is analog. (95% of cars is analog)

CP: In what increments does the speedometer go up by?

SR: Increments of 5 (Most cars go up by this)

CP: so it is your estimation that you were doing 59, because your speedometer doesn't give an exact reading?

SR: (Unless your willing to purge yourself/DONT DO) Yes I believe that I was doing 59, based on my estimation.

Now if you have a digital gauge, the crown prosecutor count swing things like:

CP:When was the last time your speedometer was calibrated.

CP: Are your Rims/Tires factory issue? (can affect speedometer reading)

CP: Were your tires properly inflated? (also affects speedometer reading)

Most likely you cannot prove any of these facts. So in the closing statements, the crown prosecutor would say that how the officers reading on the lidar/radar is more accurate than that of the defendant (pre testing, certifications, etc) therefore the charge should be speeding 72 in a 50 rather than 59 in a 50.

That's why JSherk is recommending to NOT TESTIFY.

I just want to add that I completely disagree with absolute liability offences.

The Ministry and Police talk about safety and speeding together all the time, however when charged with speeding you are not given the opportunity to prove whether you were driving safely or causing some kind of danger to others. If I am driving on the 401 going 130km/h on a straight dry stretch of road with light traffic, there is nothing unsafe about it.

So I am not trying to deter you from fighting your ticket, I am just warning you about how the system works with these types of offences.

I have an issue in general with charges that involve no harm or damage as well, but that is another story.

rank wrote:

BTW, The Stig, I replied to you by PM. Not sure if it went through or not. Still learning this message board format.

Your PM did not come through.

It ain't the dang radar that's in question. You folks actually think that a police officer's testimony of when he pressed the radar button trumps physics? Guys, I appreciate the advice but forget about MY case for a minute. Don't get hung up on whether or not I can bring reasonable doubt.

Let's say a defendant admits to speeding but could produce irrefutable evidence that he was NOT doing 72. He can even prove beyond any doubt that he was doing less than 65...i.e. lesser fine and no points. This defendant does not even need a speedometer to prove it. And this defendant is guilty of 72? I can tell you what, if that defendant is guilty then his case should go all the way to the highest court. You may as well suspend the law of gravity in favor of police testimony of when he pressed a stupid button because that is what we are talking about here.

Again appreciate the help. He can press the button any time he wants. He can drive around all day with 72 on the radar. They can use dash camera video to capture the button push but they don't. WHY? Gotta love the Ontario court system has everyone brainwashed into thinking one man with a button is GOD. LOL.

You have peaked my curiosity...In this matter, what would the "irrefutable evidence" be? The courts will consider any evidence you put forth, whether they are buying what you are selling is the big question.

Again I love that you want to go after it the way you do. But you have to play by the rules of their game!

If you have an EXPERT WITNESS bring the "physics" testimony then you definitely have a chance.

Could you pull it off yourself? Well possibly. But you have an uphill battle in trying to convince a JP if you are not considered and expert in the field. Again it is possible, but you had better have a really really really good presentation.

And in the end it is up to the JP on how much weight they give your testimony versus the officers.

This is our great canadian un-justice system... please leave your common sense outside the court room!

Screech, I'm sure you understand that I'd rather not sent the crown a telegram detailing my defense. I've tried to be vague as possible.

If I am granted a new trial, I suppose this is a discussion that myself, the crown and the judge will need to have.

1. Here are my qualifications...do you consider me an expert witness?

2. Can I put myself on the stand as a expert but not as the driver?