Printable View
Went to court today to fight a red light ticket. Interesting to say the least.
I'm planning on appealing the conviction, should I not talk about it here before the appeal is done? I'd like to get some advice, I think its worth an appeal but I'd like to get other opinions.
Carmen
It's up to you, whether you discuss it here or not. Just realize that everything posted here is effectively public.
Posting actual facts on a public forum could be used against you. Posting hypothetical questions that may relate to a hypothetical situation may get you the help you need without screwing yourself if the prosecutor or cop decides to do some internet research.
I suppose I can talk about what happened in court, since its public record?
Was charged with a red light camera ticket. First trial date was scheduled 13 months after offense, didn't get notice, reopened the trial after I got notice of conviction, today's trial was nearly 16 months from offense. So I motioned for stay on 11b. I've done this before, and was denied because I didn't file the right papers.
This time I printed up the motion as per suggestions on this site and others and faxed it to the four places you're supposed to (attorney gen fed/provincial, clerk of the court and prosecutors office.) months in advance. I had the fax confirmation slip in hand and the document that I sent with me in court.
Prosecutor argued I didn't file properly and the JP agreed, motion denied. That was surprising, I thought for sure with 16 months and the right paper work that would have passed.
I then pled not guilty.
Before court I was given copies of a bunch of blurry photos that showed a car going through a red, but you clearly couldn't read the plate. It included an enlarged copy, where you could read the plate, but that version didn't show the light. There was no one in court as far as witnesses, the prosecutor just submitted the photos which were signed by some provincial officer as evidence. I said I wanted to cross examine this person, but the JP said I should have filed a subpena. I mentioned that it was only that day that I was made aware of this person's existence and name, but he wouldn't hear of it.
Found guilty.
I'd like people's opinion on filing documents through fax? It was my understanding that this is commonly done, or am I misinformed.
I'm also scratching my head about the lack of a witness and my inability to cross examine the person verifying these photos as authentic and coming from machinery that is in working order.
Thoughts?
Carmen
Unfortunately, because you wrote something that isn't hypothetical, I can't answer directly.
However, I suggest that you look up the regulations regarding the use of red light camera pictures as evidence for your answer.
www.canlii.org
Best of luck.
Ordered the transcript today . . .whata crock.
$4.30 a page. 25 pages. You do the math.
Asked them if they could do anything to reduce the cost like print on both pages or reduce font, I got yelled at.
Justice in Canada? Only for the rich.
Carmen
ask for a pdf file
transcripts are expensive, the courts have you by the balls in that regard
if you fax documents you need to have 16B Affidavit of Service Forms notarized by a Commisioner of Oath, or else they won't be accepted in court
but if you live in the GTA, why not serve the courts, prosecutor's office and even the attorney general of ontario in-person? and get them stamped: "received"? there are even Commisioner of Oaths at the courts who'll notarize your 11B documents for free
imo i wouldn't be worried about the public/private record of your trial/charge, i highly doubt the crown will peruse GTAMotorcycle looking to somehow connect the dots to your small irrelevant in-precedential case
Oh boy here we go.Quote:
Originally Posted by cbranje
Are you claiming that you were convicted of something that you did not do? If so, that would be an injustice. If not, then net justice has been served.Quote:
Originally Posted by cbranje
Since the facts of the case were stated, it sounds to me like the defendant is trying to find an excuse to get out of the conviction for something that they actually did, as opposed to actually not having done the deed, and in this case, I don't really have a problem with it being expensive and difficult, either.
Just remember, if you are coming up to a traffic lamp with a camera, the instant that light turns yellow, you have to go into 4 wheel ABS mode to make sure you are not entering the intersection on the red. That this causes you to get plowed over by the tractor-trailer behind you who hasn't got a hope in hell of ever being able to stop as quickly as you can, is of no legal defence as far as I know.
We don't know whether the original poster was being trailed by that transport truck.
From the HTA...Quote:
Originally Posted by cbranje
Quote:
Challenge to officer’s evidence
205.20 (1) The provincial offences officer who used the evidence obtained through the use of a red light camera system to identify the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the alleged offence and who issued the offence notice and certificate of offence shall not be required to give oral evidence at trial unless a summons requiring the officer to attend is issued at trial under section 39 of the Provincial Offences Act. 1998, c. 38, s. 4.
Same
(2) A provincial offences officer who certifies that a photograph was obtained through the use of a red light camera system shall not be required to give oral evidence at trial unless a summons requiring the officer to attend is issued at trial under section 39 of the Provincial Offences Act. 1998, c. 38, s. 4.
Summons
(3) No summons shall be issued to a provincial offences officer referred to in subsection (1) or (2) unless a justice is satisfied that the defendant will not be able to have a fair trial if the officer is not required to give oral evidence. 1998, c. 38, s. 4.
Certificate evidence
205.21 (1) The certified statements in a certificate of offence are admissible in evidence as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts stated in it. 1998, c. 38, s. 4.
Where statements not proof
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the statements setting out the evidence of an officer referred to in subsection 205.20 (1) in respect of whom a summons has been issued. 1998, c. 38, s. 4.
Another factor here is that since the red-light ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle and not necessarily against the driver (because they don't know who was driving), it won't affect your insurance and won't affect your driving record. Given that ... Not worth pursuing.
No hyperbole here, just move on people. Haha. I've live in Brampton for over ten years and driven through many photographed intersections, and went through when I probably shouldn't have. Never had any issues and I love seeing all the red light runners getting flashed, that just makes my day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian P
as per the fax argument,
if i am going to fax an (important) paper to someone, also send it registered mail.
The difference between Moral Justice and Legal Justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by turbodish
The Crown has to legally prove their case in order for you to be guilty. If they fail to do so or you put up a better defense then you are legally innocent. What's irrelevant is whether or not you've actually committed the crime.
Now morally, that's for each person to decide. What you feel you may have to answer for is not what someone else may. You may also feel the penalty is too severe, or too little. It's possible a drunk driver may feel his minor sentence for killing someone may never be enough. On the opposite end of the spectrum, many drivers travel safely at 115-120kph on the 401 yet are ticketted. They fight the ticket because morally their own conscience is clean and in their minds, they're being wronged.
Are you allowed to ask someone else, like a friend not lawyers to go to court for u in case if you cant make it to the court date? Even just to talk to the prosecutor for a reduced fine?
I also have a red light ticket to deal with...
Write a letter saying you authorize "insert name here" to represent you and sign and date it. If you are nervous about it being accepted, copy your drivers license on it. Just be aware that if your friend f's up, you can't go whining to the court, you allowed them to represent you, you have to live with the consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstartt
First stage of appeal completed. I successfully applied for order of recognizance which allows me to appeal without paying the $400 fine I was sentenced to. I had to fill out a bunch of forms and appear before a judge, a real one this time.
They said it would take about 3 months for the transcripts to come in.
I was last to go that day and I saw many appeals before me. The appeals court seems lenient. For one the judge was not red in the face and yelling at everyone. Second he was halving peoples fines left right and centre. One fellow had $10,000 fine cut in half, most who appealed got at least a reduction in their fine. I just got more of a proper law and order feel from this court, where the initial traffic court with the JP was clearly just a shakedown session. I'll update as things progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbranje
Wouldn't it be nice to see a real judge everytime you went to traffic court instead of JPs pretending to know the law?
I have traffic court coming up (again!), I have a feeling the JP isn't going to pay attention to any of my defense and solely rely on the testimony of the officer. Once I appeal and reach a real judge, it will be relatively easy to prove my case.