“Two Stop Sign Infractions But One Ticket?”

screeech wrote:Disclosure is an ongoing process where the defendant must take an active role. If you wait until court to ask for a typed written break down of the officers notes, the Jusitce of the Peace will question you as to what efforts you made to get a typed version of the notes...at trial, the JP may, or may not, adjourn the matter...The notes are not that hard to read...you went through the first stop sign at 20-25Km/H, went through the 2nd stop sign at 5-6Km/H, Officer had clear unobstructed view...

I already received "additional disclosure" a few days ago from the police station.

The crown informed me (the police court officer aka crown) that he would be admitting the video as evidence.

He will not be there for trial on the 19th due to his vacation, he called me to let me know that and reminded me I could plead guilty.

The audio in the video was malfunctioning / omitted due to "technical error."

From what I understand, the court cannot allow this video as evidence if I object since the one who handled the evidence (video) and compressed the digital data and transferred it to CD-ROM will not be there. I will also argue the audio narrative could have dramatically contradicted what the officer wrote on the video. Why was it buzzed out?

As for what you read, yeah, I could make out some of it. But can you understand his abbreviations and all of the words? Even his typed copy is not proper English. I would fail a grade 5 student if he handed in such a poorly written paragraph.

I had court today. It took aprox 50 minutes for the trial. The JP allowed the video as evidence, but promised to use it with a grain of salt since the video tech wasn't there- who was on vacation. Police were unable to satisfactory answer my questions about the video camera and compression of data. JP bought my argument that the data could have been manipulated and lost by compression.

Got the officer to admit he was approaching my stopping vehicle at no less then 76km/hr- 26km/hr over the speed limit! Officer/crown tried to object to my questions to the police officer, but was overruled by the JP. One of my questions to the officer was: If my vehicle was travelling at 25km/hr, wouldn't you consider that wreckless driving? Possibly an intoxicated driver? My second question was why didn't you immediately activate your lights when you saw the first violation occur, assuming you were confident I violated (in a wreckless way) the first stop sign? JP agreed with me again, it was a relevant question.

In a nutshell, the JP agreed with me that I have valid questions for the regular court officer who is on vacation- he called me last week and informed me that he was on vacation.

Now, the trial has been adjourned to Feb 8th; the officer wanted Feb 1 but JP agreed to work with my schedule.

Now, the replacement officer for the regular court officer must also show up + the original court officer. Original ticketing officer was on OT (4 hours)

I didn't even yet introduce my ticket error- I will do that on my closing summary.

ANy suggestions on how to get a mistrial, based on video admitted evidence with my objection, prior to being able to question the court officer who made the video prior to the JP viewing the video? Could it contaminate the trial?

Congratualtions on doing what sounds like a good job in court!

Basically after you ask all the officers all the questions you want, you will then get a chance to take the witness stand and give your side of the story.

When that is all done, you get to present your closing arguments which is where you basically summarize all the problems with officers testimonies and say you should be found not guilty.

jsherk wrote:Congratualtions on doing what sounds like a good job in court!

Basically after you ask all the officers all the questions you want, you will then get a chance to take the witness stand and give your side of the story.

When that is all done, you get to present your closing arguments which is where you basically summarize all the problems with officers testimonies and say you should be found not guilty.

Thanks. Those two police officers were truly annoyed and frustrated by me, they couldn't believe they were overruled and I thought the witness (ticketing officer) was about to pound his chest out of frustration. The JP was looking at him amusingly, he was enjoying the show.

I already asked the ticketing officer all the questions, his evidence is complete. My next witness will be the court/video tech who is actually not a video tech.

Trial not over yet! My closing summary is also not over yet, and hopefully my incorrectly completed ticket will be the seal of the deal.

Well done! It's not often a JP overrules a prosecutor's objection to a defendant's questions. Then again, most self-represented defendants ask irrelevant questions.

I wouldn't worry about a mistrial over the JP allowing the video. He's already told you he's taking it with a grain of salt and is on your side as to the possible lack of detail from compression. He's already doubting the face value of the video. The video tech would pretty much have to bring the original, uncompressed video to court and prove that the compressed version is every bit as clear as the original. That won't happen.

I had day 2 of this stop sign trial (another full hour today of me questioning).

Decision was not given today, the justice told me that I can be reached by telephone for the decision March 8th- attend only if I want to.

He has alot of evidence to consider.

The justice refused to consider the second offense at all, denying the prosecution the right to pursue it- focusing on the first one. He said that he appreciates me attending court twice so far.

I got the "guy who made the video" to admit he was clueless about technical specs and that the audio malfunction, as occurred in the video provided, occurs only in "1%" of the cases; my case was the 1% and I really rode that fact.

I invoked the Provincial Evidence Act (here it's SK but it's exactly worded in ON), regarding the "integrity of an electronic document."

So the justice has not concluded whether he will or won't allow the evidence to bare any weight, he claimed he took it with a grain of salt.

The justice also advised he will consider whether the legality of the ticket itself (no offense box properly selected) will be impactful and informed me that he would consider quashing the ticket if required to do so by law.

I really hope I win... I am happy that I got it this far!

Sounds like you did a pretty good job! Congratulations on pursuing it this far.

Let us know what happens!

Hey folks,

In peoples experience here, is a delayed verdict better for the defence or the prosecution?

With my case, the judge said he had many things to consider and review. I felt it was in my favor but was wondering your expert opinions?

Well it is not in anybody's favor necessarily. However what it means is that you probably did a a good job of presenting a defense that the JP must actually take time to consider.

It could still go either way though.

Well, I got a call the other day and it was to delay the hearing for another month and few days; there was a major snow storm and the justice told me that he could not make it on time and was having trouble viewing the video. He has not decided whether to admit the video or not. Postponed until April 12th for a phone hearing and verdict (though he made a mistake and called it sentencing, informing me that I should receive a letter in the mail confirming the changes).

3rd Delay!

Hey folks,

The justice ruled against against me.

Nonetheless, I plan to appeal the ruling under error of law, which I believe there is substantial and straight-forward evidence of.

i) Justice Rondo erred in permitting a video to be weighed upon when the court officer (who also made the video) cited a malfunction of the police dashcam video. Police were unable to defense the limitations of malfunction. Court officer conceded to defence that there was a troubleshooting hotline that he could have consulted prior to admitting video into court as evidence, which he admittingly, did not consult, despite fully being aware of the seriousness and clout of a court ruling.

ii) Justice Rondo erred in judgement by making an assumption the missing data on the video was not important to the case. In the words of Justice Rondo, he considered the missing data as "neutral" on part of prosecution and defendment; despite the defense seeking to admit the audio portion of the video, the justice made an assumption that it was not important to the case. How can missing data from a digital file be considered as neutral when defense sought to use data that should have been included in the file as per ticketing officers testimony?

iii) Justice Rondo erred in judgement by admitting the dashcam video, which failed to satisfy the "Proving Integrity Of Electronic Records System" requirements pertaining to the "electronic record system" as required by the Saskatchewan Evidence Act (57)(a)(b)(c); the evidence offered digitally also failed to satisfy the Best Evidence Rule. The Best Evidence Rule (Sec 56(1) of Saskatchewan Evidence Act) prescribes that the original copy of evidence be presented in court, how could the Justice assume such considering data was admittingly omitted, by error, while in custody of the police.

IV) Justice Rondo erred in judgement by failing to clarify in his judgement, how the police dashcam video satisfied the requirements of the Saskatchewan Evidence Act despite the defenses argument.

V) Justice Rondo informed the defense that he did not understand technology terminology nor what a frame rate was, which was imperative to being able to fairly interprut digital video which was provided to the police to the court, on CD-ROM. Police Prosecutor Det. Dechief, misinformed Justice Rondo that the available video was on a DVD, not a CD-ROM, a substantial difference in data storage and technology which has the ability to profoundly change the way the video was perceived on Justice Rondo's laptop. Justice Rondo was left susceptible to police interpretation, which the Justice relied upon the assumed integrity of the police, which did not correctly tell the truth before the courts (Evidence will be included with court files.) Furthermore, contrary to The Best Evidence Rule, the "Electronic Record (the CD-Rom, not DVD), was stored and processed by a party not adverse (Sec. 56bc of SK Evidence Act) to the party seeking to introduce evidence before the courts; the party who held custody and processed the electronic record (the CD-Rom of Dashcam Footage) had direct gain from obtaining a favourable judgement, based on the video created by the police who also acted as the prosecutor.

VI) Justice Rondo erred in judgement by permitting a ticket which was not regular in its face and failed to properly contain a certificate of offense notice. All spaces provided for the certificate of offense were left blank and checkmark was on the outside of the box, failing to satisfy the Saskatchewan Summary Offence Regulations which perscribe "in the spaces provided." By failing to properly check the certificate of offense box, there was no certificate of offence notice served, which is contrary to Sec 18(1)(a)(ii)(iii) and (b) of the Saskatchewan Summary Offences Act.

----------------------------------

Proving integrity of electronic records system

57 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the integrity of the electronic records

system in or by which an electronic record is recorded or stored is proven for the

purposes of subsection 56(1):

(a) by evidence that supports a finding that at all material times the computer

system or other similar device was operating properly or, if it was not, the fact

of its not operating properly did not affect the integrity of the electronic record

and there are no reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the electronic

records system;

(b) if it is established that the electronic record was recorded or stored by

a party to the proceeding who is adverse in interest to the party seeking to

introduce it; or

(c) if it is established that the electronic record was recorded or stored in the

usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the

proceeding and who did not record or store it under the control of the party

seeking to introduce the record

and The Best Evidence Rule

Application of best evidence rule

56(1) Subject to subsection (2), where the best evidence rule applies to an electronic

record, the rule is satisfied on proof of the integrity of the electronic records system

in or by which the electronic record was recorded or stored.

(2) An electronic record in the form of a printout that has been manifestly or

consistently acted on, relied on or used is the record for the purposes of the best

evidence rule.

--------------------------------------------------

Can anyone tell me their opinion? It seems straight forward that the Justice erred in making a unsubstantiated assumption that a video which the police admitted was malfunctioning, that the police officer who made the video declined to make an attempt to rectify the video errors with the equipment supplier despite admittingly before the courts, having the opportunity to do so. Justice Rondo made an assumption that the rest of the video was sufficient, despite the defense seeking to admit the missing portion of the data on the video.

Does anyone know if I can seek a "Stay Of Fine Payment & Conviction" pending the outcome of the appeal?

Any information would be appreciated. I have already initiated the transcript request. Even though the ticket is only $230, I have an immense interest in defeating it, even if it costs me $2000!

Hey guys

Can anyone take a look at my grounds for appeal of my notice to appeal and tell me if everything is acceptable?

This is my first time doing this so I've been using the resources I can find online.

Folks,

I have filed already a notice of appeal.

I have a question if anyone with knowledge could kindly answer:

1) Can a legal argument which was not introduced at trial, be introduced in appeal? Example, no mention of a certain rule or regulation, or court case precedent was brought up in the defendants arguments during the trial, but the appellant now seeks to raise a legal error of law issue that was not considered by the trial judge, although not submitted by the defence during the trial.

An example of my case would be that the trial justice failed to consider s. 57 (a)(b)(c) of the evidence act as the Crown did not demonstrate the integrity requirement under the digital evidence act. The appellant seeks to introduce a legal precedent with vaguely reminiscent circumstances from the Court of Appeal in Alberta, as well as s. 58 of the evidence act (which was not mentioned during trial by the defendant.) Would this be acceptable?

2) Can anyone please tell me what the appeal court's jurisdiction to determine an appeal of a summary court's conviction (I live in Saskatchewan, though I believe this will be covered under the Criminal Code under the same laws that would govern Ontario.)

3) Does anyone know what is expected when, " the applicable standard of appellate review," is mentioned as a requirement under the Memorandum of Argument (Factum) I do not understand the term and I do not see it mentioned in factums available online.

1) Appellate courts are only able to hear questions of law or questions of fact. The purpose of an appeal is not to relitigate the issues from trial. The purpose of an appeal is to point out possible errors that the learned trial justice made in his/her decision. For your case, yes, if you are arguing an error in law, you can bring up statutes or case law to show that the Court made an error. How would you know that the justice is going to make an error at trial and how would you be able to make those arguments at trial? The only way to know if the justice made an error is after they make their decision, and the only way to argue it is at an appeal.

2) The appellate court's jurisdiction would be based on legislation similar to the Courts of Justice Act in Ontario. Since traffic tickets are provincial offences and regulatory in nature and covered under your province's Provincial Offences Act, they are not criminal and they are not covered under the Criminal Code which is federal legislation. In general, appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals on all lower court decisions. They are able to make findings that the learned trial justice made an error of law or an error of fact. And appellate courts are able to provide relief by varying the sentence, overturning a conviction, ordering a new trial, overturning an acquittal, or a combination of those relief.

3) In general, there are two standards of review: reasonableness and correctness. In order to argue that the learned trial justice made an error of law or an error of fact, you must show that his/her decision is either not reasonable or not correct.

Hello whenaxis,

So you are saying that s. 813 of the Criminal Code of Canada, pertaining to summary conviction appeals, does not grant the right to appeal?

I was studying cases on CanLII's website and noticed many traffic infractions were appealed on grounds laid out under s. 813:

The provincial summary offences act does not contain information on the appeal process in my province.

Am I misunderstanding something here?