OHTA.ca

From disclosure, the officers notes state the serial number of the radar unit and that it was a Genesis II Directional.

Also in disclosure were two pages of the radar manual (Field Tests section) and across the top of these pages it says Genesis II Directional (Rev 02/05). So the test pages match the model given in officers notes.

I received the disclsoure 1 day before first trial, so asked for adjournment and it was granted. At trial I mentioned that I had asked for a copy of the entire manual but was told I would not get it. JP said I did not need, but suggested prosecutor could let me view it, and she said okay.

I showed up at prosecutors office, and they could not find a copy of this particular manual. The prosecutor at the trial was not there, but some other gentlman said he would contact the detachment and find out about the proper manual. I received an email from him and he said that whoever he talked to at the detachment said that particular serial number was a Genesis II Select Directional and not a Genesis II Directional.

Okay, so now comes the hard part...

How do I go about convincing a JP that there are some discrpencies with the model reported by the officer and the model reported by the detachment?

If the officer followed the testing procedure from a different model, then this is good reason to show that it may not have been working correctly since the proper testing procedure was not followed exactly per the manufacturers instructions.

Its the same manual for both models.

No it's not as the testing pages I got clearly say "Genesis II Directional Rev 02/05" at the top which is not the same as a "Genesis II Select Directional Rev 25/AUG/2010."

So they may similar, but they are not the same.

The latest manual is 2012

Why should you have to prove to the judge the manuals are different? JP said the crown could let you see IT. IT does not mean any manual. IT means the correct manual. The crown did not do what they were supposed to do.

I would move to dismiss. If the trial goes ahead then I appeal. At appeal, I ask for a copy of the manual again. I bet the crown withdraws before they give it.

The bit of the manual you are after is the testing procedure, right ?

Perhaps there were no changes in the testing procedures between the manuals. If the changes were on other non-relevant stuff then crown could argue you received the information that you were looking for.

I requested the whole manual. Whether you agree or not that they should provide it, I believe they should provide the whole thing as the content of the manual is likely relevant to the use of the device.

INITIAL DISCLOSURE REQUEST THAT I SENT PROSECUTOR:

REQUEST I SENT AFTER THEY WERE UNABLE TO PROVIDE MANUAL FOR ME TO VIEW:

If the courts are willing to accept the verbal testimony then it would be up to you to locate and view a copy of the manual. There are many defence lawyers who have purchased their own radar units, intoxilysers etc to gain the knowledge that they feel they need to challenge charges.

If the manual was being submitted as evidence then it would need to be disclosed. But it isn't.

It's the same when people ask for training records of officers right back until they started as a rookie, maintenance records of police vehicles etc etc. It is a common ploy to try and use the shotgun approach and try to ask for anything and everything and then cry foul when everything is not forthcoming.

As we've discussed before it's the defendant's right to try and convince the judge that something is relevant but it is only the judge that can compel the crown to produce something.

That's my opinion - we disagree and that's ok.

There is definitely info in the operator portion that is relevant and material to many speeding defendants. I successfully used some of the information to defend myself. The JP may allow the crown railroad the defense but I bet the appeal judge won't. And since the police and the crown will rather dismiss than have a appeal court ruling against them, in my view, they will withdraw.