OHTA.ca

Hey everyone,

I'm looking for some advice with my case.

Here is what's happened so far:

• Speeding ticket (HTA S.128) back in April
  • 80 kph in a 60 kph zone reduced from a Radar reading R94

• Disclosure request faxed twice: early June and early July
  • Asked for Officer's notes, Officer's typed notes, Officer's copy of ticket, Police operating manual for radar equipment, Police technical manual for radar equipment

• Trial held mid-July
  • Crown was extremely disorganized- trying to make deals with people last minute, etc.
  • I was pulled outside and handed my disclosure mere minutes before my turn, asked if I want to adjourn or take some time to read it over and proceed
  • I decided to proceed because the disclosure only consisted of copy of ticket and Officer's notes (log book and typed).. no radar equipment disclosure
  • When my arraignment time came, the Officer was not in the court room, so the prosecutor delayed my turn
  • A second prosecutor wheeled into the courtroom to help out his buddy; he pulled myself and another fellow into the adjoining court room; freakin scary because nobody there except JP and clerk!
  • I introduced a motion to dismiss charge based on inadequate disclosure; JP wasn't having it; she said I had not been prejudiced by not receiving the radar equipment documentation, I had months to find it myself, the Crown was not obliged to provide that info, etc.
  • I brought up R. v. Stinchcombe to argue that the prosecution must provide me with all relevant information and documentation so that I may prepare my defence against the above charge and make full answer.
  • Again, JP wasn't having it; she said the key word is "should" as in the prosecution should provide full disclosure but they don't have to if they can't for whatever reason
  • JP suggested that we adjourn if I feel that I'm not getting a fair trial, so that I can have time to find the relevant manuals; I said no because I've already taken the time to come to court and I would rather proceed; JP insisted that I adjourn so I agreed (I wasn't getting anywhere with her)
  • *Interesting: JP made me waive my 11b right for adjourning! I was shocked and only later realized how unfair that was! Why should I waive my right to a speedy trial when we're adjourning because of their non-disclosure!
    • Not really relevant because trial was adjourned only one month later

• Disclosure request (same things) faxed one week prior to new trial date (I know I should have done it earlier!)

I'm thinking of requesting another adjournment to buy more time in order to get all your great feedback!

After that, I'm thinking of requesting a stay of proceedings based on being treated unfairly.. good idea or no?

If the trial does happen, I think my only chance is to attack the Officer's testing of the radar equipment.. here is what his notes say:

Radar Type: LASER LTI/STALKER II

Radar Serial Number: AS002790/UX019540

Test Time: SEE NOTE BOOK

Overweight:

Officer Notes:

WHILE ON GEN PAT TVL N ON *** BLVD IN UNMARKED OBSERVED A BLK ACURA RSX-S TVL SAME AT EST SPEED 80KM/H AND INCREASING. ACT. DASHMOUNT STALKER II LOCKED SPEED IN ONCE BEHIND VEH AT 94KM/H IN A POSTED 60KM/S MIDE/MALE DRIVER WITH VALID PHOTO DL MIDE/FEMALE PAX "I AM JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE STORE MY CAR DOESNT EVEN GO THAT FAST. I WAS ONLY TRING TO PASS THE CAR". NIGHT TIME STREET LIGHTING GOOD VIS FLAT DRY PAVED RDS

The Officer's notebook notes state some things at the beginning of his shift (on page 158), ie. time, station, conditions, radio #, car #, and what I believe may be the initial equipment testing:

1210:

Lidar-VX 018367

ULTRA LYTE LRB

888 888 888

Key FD 257024 64

Key FA 168749-40

Then there's the entry related to my stop (page 164).

The next page (page 165) simply says: Radar test OK -> no time written!

Questions:

Why was lidar equipment tested at the beginning of the shift when radar was used on me (allegedly)? Could it be a two-in-one unit?

Is the last page sufficient to prove the radar equipment was working correctly at the end of the shift? (I think not because there's no time given!)

Any and all tips, strategies, feedback is appreciated!

Thanks so much!

Sounds like the JP was "interesting," for lack of a better expression. There's also lots of appeal court precedent about disclosure of the manual. The JP cannot force you to "waive" your right. What it sounds like happened, though, is that the JP ruled that the adjournment was your fault, and it "stopped the clock" (for the time being) on the 11B. You could try appealing that, but I'm not sure it's entirely worthwhile.

You may want to check the R. v. Schlesinger case... I can't recall right now if that was the one that noted the times of the tests were required. If you articulate this argument correctly, it might be enough.

There are no "two-in-one" radar/lidar units. The device that clocked your speed has to have been tested and shown to be working properly. Did they ever give you the manual? If not - file for a stay. Check this website for some precedent regarding the requirement to disclose the manual (there are a few threads about that).

By the way, were you originally clocked at 94 in a 60 zone?

Yeah, I was caught on radar allegedly doing 94 in a 60. Although I find that hard to believe because I was getting on an on-ramp (which is where I was actually stopped) in less than 100 metres (and it's a sharp 90 degree turn).

Come on guys, any suggestions/tips? My trial is coming up on Tuesday!