“Speeding - 120km/h In A Posted 100km/h Zone - No Radar...”

Hey All,

I received a speeding ticket of 120km/h in a posted 100km/h zone (hwy 401), however the officer did not use radar on my vehicle. Rather he said he followed me and that I was speeding according to the speed of his car. He also said that I was driving in excess of 140km/h but he was writing me a reduced ticket of 120km/h. I do not believe I was speeding, and can he use his speedometer to register a valid speeding ticket for me? What can I do to fight this?

Thank you.

paradigm wrote:can he use his speedometer to register a valid speeding ticket for me?

yes

paradigm wrote:can he use his speedometer to register a valid speeding ticket for me?

Yes, it's called pacing. Police vehicle speedometers are calibrated so it's accepted in court.

Saw this dismissed in court one time by a paralegal asking for the certificate of certification of the speedometer, or last date of maintanence/testing of the speedo. Officer stated it said on his speedo it was certified but no dates or further info. Paralegal asked if the speedo gear or cable had ever been altered or repaired, and the officer stated he had no idea of what a speedo gear was. Paralegal requested motion to dismiss and was granted as the crown could not prove that the speedo was actually certified to be true.

I think a result like that will vary from JP to JP.

Question for court: Officer, did the car you were driving recently have snow tires installed? Yes, was the speedometer calibrated after that? Done.

Hi All,

I am currently stuck home because of a really bad ear infection and the flu. I went to the doctor on the weekend, and whiles there I had a doctor's note written, which my girlfriend will be taking to the courthouse on Monday (tomorrow). My trial is set for tomorrow, she will request to have it adjourned based on the fact that I am representing myself and that I was unable to show because of illness. Will there be any issue with this request? Further, I have already had the trial adjourned once before because of another reason.

Thanks

Depends on the JP, it's not out of the question to get another adjournment.

Guys, i am a little late with my request for disclosure - I am requesting it as of June 9th 2011 via fax. Trial date is now July 11, 2011, which leaves me with 4-5 weeks till trial. Will the crown or JP tell me that I am out of luck if/when they do not provide the disclosure in time, and I request an adjournment based on that? This trial has already been adjourned twice before (the original charge was on July 18, 2010, 1st adjournment on November 29, 2010 and 2nd adjournment on March 28, 2011), both because of me.

You should still get disclosure but your 11b arguement is out the window.

Guys, I received disclosure with just 2 business days (and 4 including weekend) before the trial. Is this enough time to properly prepare or can an adjournment be made? Furthermore, the disclosure doesn't include all that I request. I requested disclosure for the following:

o a full copy of the police officers notes; - RECEIVED

o a copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket (Notice of Offence); - DID NOT RECEIVE

o a typed version of any hand written notes; - DID NOT RECEIVE

o certificate of certification of the speedometer; - DID NOT RECEIVE

o last date of maintenance / testing of the speedometer; - DID NOT RECEIVE

o speedometer gear / cable maintenance records; - DID NOT RECEIVE

How likely is it that the justice would provide this information that I requested ? Also can I get the trial adjourned because they didn't provide the requested?

o any statements made by the defendant; and

o copies of the original notes of such statements.

paradigm wrote:

o a copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket (Notice of Offence); - DID NOT RECEIVE

paradigm wrote:

o a typed version of any hand written notes; - DID NOT RECEIVE

paradigm wrote:

o any statements made by the defendant; and

o copies of the original notes of such statements.

As for your request in regards to the calibration info, I think that could go either way. As Simon said, I think that's JP dependent.

I suppose you could argue that in every speed-measuring device used by police in Ontario, and supported by case law such as R. v. Vancrey, R. v. Schlesinger, etc., the device had to be tested and shown to be working correctly both before and after the stop. Unless there is some sort of proof that the speedometer was working before and after the stop (some kind of independent test or calibration), I would argue that the standard for a speeding conviction (extrapolating from previous case law) has not been met and the charge should be quashed.

Would that work? Don't know. Like Stanton and Simon Borys say, it probably depends on the JP.