“Possible Logic Win?”

Hi there,

so a little background: a few months ago I was pulled over on the 403 and given a ticket for doing 136 in a 100. This was my first ticket. I got my trial date for Oct. 27 and I filed for disclosure and didn't receive anything. A week before my trial I called and they said they tried to contact me and nothing happened. I requested my trial be adjourned and it was. It is now scheduled for Nov. 16.

In my disclosure, I received officers notes and a few pages from the radar manual. That's it.

It is my understanding that in order for radar evidence to be used, the officer must be properly trained to use it (R. v. Vancrey).

My plan is to move to strike radar evidence. That can go one of two ways, they can provide evidence at trial at which point I would move to dismiss as it wasn't provided in my disclosure or they don't provide it in which case I win.

If they try to use the officer's testimony as evidence of his qualifications I would object based on expert witness, and cite the fact that he isn't qualified to determine whether people (himself included) are properly qualified to operate a device but rather a certificate must attest to his qualifications.

Please let me know if this makes sense and if it would fly in court. Also, let me know if you want me to upload some more details of my case. Thanks in advance!!

Courts will accept an officer's testimony that he has been trained.

argyll wrote:Courts will accept an officer's testimony that he has been trained.

According to Regina v. Vancrey, [2000] O.J. No. 3033 (Ont. C.A.)

"In that case [DAstous v. Baie Comeau, supra.] the court held that judicial notice could be taken of the fact that radar is used to measure the speed of automobiles and that the principle upon which it is based can be found in any encyclopedia. However, in each case, the Crown must still prove that the particular radar device was operated accurately at the time. To do that the Crown must show:

- The operator was qualified: he followed a course, he passed an exam, he has several months experience;

- The device was tested before and after the operation;

- The device was accurate as verified by a test and that the tuning fork used was accurate. Once evidence is led to demonstrate those facts, then the radar reading becomes prima facie evidence of the speed of the vehicle, subject to evidence to the contrary, if any."

then and only then does the radar evidence become prima facie. A simple testimony by the officer can be objected on the basis of either lack of foundation or non-expert witness. If we are to simply take the officers word, would that not render the entire certification process useless?

Thanks for your response, hope to hear from you soon!

The testimony is that he attended a course and was certified in the use of the radar. He has 'foundation' because he was there for the course knows he passed it and will testify that he did his checks. And he doesn't need to be an expert - that's the instructor who you would have to call as a witness.

You are asking a judge to basically throw out every speeding ticket in Ontario. it isn't going to happen.

argyll wrote:The testimony is that he attended a course and was certified in the use of the radar. He has 'foundation' because he was there for the course knows he passed it and will testify that he did his checks. And he doesn't need to be an expert - that's the instructor who you would have to call as a witness.

You are asking a judge to basically throw out every speeding ticket in Ontario. it isn't going to happen.

I appreciate your reply.

However, I'm not asking for much from the courts. I'm simply asking to provide the certificate of his qualifications?

Again, thanks for the reply.

Most, if not all, police agencies in Ontario don't issue a certificate for radar operator training. It is sufficient for the officer to testify that they are a qualified radar operator. That is widely accepted by the courts. In fact, I've seen a officer asked if he had a certificate on the witness stand and his answer was "no". The Justice had no issue with that.

Do you have some doubts or evidence to suggest that they are not qualified? You will have an opportunity to cross examine the officer on the exact details of their training - dates, location, instructor, examination process, etc. Unless you raise some serious doubt as to their qualification your argument is going nowhere.

You seem to be very focus on this one point. When having a trial, it is best to come prepared with multiple different angles of attack. I'd move onto something else. Just my two cents.

Exactly. They will testify that they have been trained. They don't necessarily need to prove that. The judge can choose to believe them or not as they do with all other evidence. If you have grounds to believe he is lying then you get to attack him in cross examination.

Id certainly put someones knowledge, skills and abilities above a piece of paper any day of the week. A certificate is only worth the paper its printed on.

So quick little update for those who care:

I got my case adjourned to due lack of disclosure which ended up being because the prosecutor gave me the wrong owners manual. However, when I was at my trial i spoke to the officer and he clarified that he had actually used a laser device, and in going through some of my case law from my earlier defence, I found something that mentioned having to measure a laser device against a moving object opposed to a stationary one (i.e. a wall) and also having to compare laser readings to a radar. However, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that laser devices have recieved judicial notice and so that would render those case laws moot.

I would appreciate some insight on this. Thanks!

I'll keep everyone posted on my plan of defence!

Check his notes when you receive disclosure. If his notes refer to radar, you may have an angle. "Why do the notes refer to radar, Officer, when your testimony is you used laser?" See if there are entries for testing the laser.

Laser readings no longer have to be tested against a radar. That was from the early days of laser when courts had not yet accepted their accuracy.

Youre actually lucky that you received any portion of the manual. Recent case law doesnt require disclosure of any parts of speed measuring device manuals.