Court this week - Final Prep Help

[Rob MacLennan]

Agreed. The standard of evidence MUST be the same for all levels of court process.

What is required to prove guilt will change with time, cases gone by, appeals, and new technology which provides a higher standard of evidence.

I was thinking more about strict liability and absolute liability offences.

[dankyyz]

So then who cares about your multi car. Let the offender off because someone didnt want to take the time to do their job thoroughly and accurately.

Meh, take it like a man, Mr. Victim.

I was well awar that we were not going to agree on this. Its about,among other things, priorities for a system that is overrun.

[Grimmy]

I was thinking more about strict liability and absolute liability offences.

I know.

[MarcosSantiago]

Looking for the following info, hopefully someone can provide it.

1. By the officers notes he shows that the radar was locked first and then visually notes m/c coming up on rear fast. He doesn't record anything regarding how fast the radar said etc in his notes though. Anyways I am looking for previous cases or documents that explicitly state the officer needs to FIRST visually identify a vehicle is travelling over the speed limit and THEN use his radar to verify this.

Here it is... it explicitly states that the officer needs to FIRST visually identify a vehicle is travelling over the speed limit - and THEN use his radar to verify this.

R. v. Hawkins, 2009 ONCJ 101

Source:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj101/2009oncj101.html

2.2 What is a Tracking History and is it required for a speeding charge?
[12] Exhibit 1 sets out page 30 of the Genesis-VP User’s Manual. This manual is a product of the manufacturer of that particular radar unit. It states:

6.4 Tracking History
For each enforcement action taken by the police with respect to a speeding offence arising out of the use of this radar unit a tracking history must occur. The tracking history shall consist of:

1) A Visual Observation of an approaching or receding Motor Vehicle that appears to be in excess of the posted speed limit in the area and an estimation by the officer of the speed of that motor vehicle is traveling. Generally, skilled officers are able to estimate the speeds of moving motor vehicles within plus or minus 5 Km/H per hour of the actual speed. This is an acquired skill that is taught on the basic operators course.

2) Having made the visual observation and estimate of the rate of speed, the radar unit will be placed in the operational mode.

3) Note, that the target displayed on the radar unit is consistent and confirms the officers initial observations and estimate, and that the audio tracking tone emitted by the radar unit is consistent with the visual observations and the target speed displayed.

4) Absence of any one of the above tracking history components and NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION shall be undertaken.

[13] It is clear from the Tracking History description in Exhibit 1 that the position of the manufacturer is an officer may not lay a speeding charge unless all of the components of the tracking history exist.

[14] There is case law that illustrates the importance of a tracking history. In R v Desgagne, [1997] A.J. No. 1307, Constable Parsons of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) gave evidence on a speeding charge. Cst Parsons was a certified instructor for the RCMP in radar. At the time of the offence he had over 10,000 hours of operation of radar. The constable was operating what was described at paragraph 189, as a ‘Decater Genesis’ radar unit, which I understand to be similar to the radar unit, in the case at bar.
(NB: This Court believes the correct spelling of the manufacturer’s name is Decatur).


[15] Cst Parsons, in paragraphs 180 through 198 of Desgagne, described his actions in maintaining a tracking history with elements similar to those of Exhibit 1, on a target motor vehicle prior to laying a speeding charge. Having accepted the evidence, Reimer J., convicted Mr Desgagne of the offence of speeding.

[16] From Desgagne, I draw the following conclusions:

(a) A tracking history is considered to be a necessity by a very experienced RCMP radar instructor before laying a charge, when operating a Genesis radar speed detection device.

(b) The evidence of the tracking history was a requirement to satisfy the Court that the Crown had proven its case, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[17] A plain reading of the Tracking History in Exhibit 1 indicates to this Court that the tracking history provides one final test to ensure the operator that the unit is functioning accurately. In support of this view, I note that the Tracking History requires that once the unit is placed in operational mode, then the operator must ensure ‘that the target displayed on the radar unit is consistent and confirms the officers initial observations and estimate, and that the audio tracking tone emitted by the radar unit is consistent with the visual observations and the target speed displayed’. Only then can enforcement action be taken.

[18] In my view, an officer operating a speed detection unit, for which the device’s manufacturer requires a tracking history, is obligated to follow this part of the manufacturer’s instructions, as well as all others.

[19] I note that the prosecution did not take a contrary position on this issue.

[bear22099]

But, the charge must suit the offense. Ya don't charge someone with manslaughter if they committed premeditated murder - yet someone still died.

So, if you charge someone with 40 over, ya better be able to prove 40 over, not 20 over.

No one was "charged" with going 40 over, they were "charged" with speeding. There is no offence that says you cannot go 40 over, but there is one that says you cannot exceed the posted speed limit. The amount you go over is only for the penalty phase. Why is this so hard for people to understand?