Hot off the press - The transcript from R v Raham 2009 ONCJ 403

[MarcosSantiago]

PLEASE SAVE A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT to your local PC




This is the story of an Oakville grandmother who was found guilty of stunt driving for going more than 50 km/h above the posted limit while passing a tractor trailer.

On the advice of a paralegal, who had seen many similar cases, Jane Raham, 62, appealed her conviction to the Ontario Court of Justice, where lawyer Brian Starkman succeeded in arguing that someone who is speeding 50 km/h above the limit cannot be charged with Section 172

http://www.over80.net/userfiles/file...20judgment.pdf

[mazdubb]

"This file is damaged and could not be repaired."

[ajdomi]

Nice find

[WoBblyCaT]

"This file is damaged and could not be repaired."

Worked for me .... I right-clicked and saved it.

[MarcosSantiago]

"This file is damaged and could not be repaired."

Sorry, don't know what to tell you, it is working for me... opens in the browser OK, I can download it OK...

[MarcosSantiago]

The conclusion of Judge Griffin: impoundment of the car and license suspension at the side of the road ARE OK WITH HIM

MY CONCLUSION:

I repeat what I stated earlier; namely, there is no issue about the validity of automatic driver licence suspension at the side of the road, or the immediate impoundment of a motor vehicle, or a minimal fine of not less than $2,000, as set out in section 172 of The Highway Traffic Act.
The only issue is the possibility of imprisonment for up to six months for an absolute liability offence, which I have found section 3(7) of Ontario Regulation 455/07 to be.

[~/\L! G~]

good read good find!!

NOTE to SELF: officer DOOLAN is A DICK.

[JoeyB]

The appeal was not regarding the seizure/impound of the vehicle and suspension. So he can't take issue with it and make a ruling on it.

[mazdubb]

I find it interesting that the officer stated there was nothing unreasonable or unsafe about her pass.

[MarcosSantiago]

The appeal was not regarding the seizure/impound of the vehicle and suspension. So he can't take issue with it and make a ruling on it.

Mmmh, as a judge, I think he could have done, but why go all the way? I think he already ****** off quite a few powerful politicians...

It will take another appeal to get to that point...

[ZX600]

This ruling opens a brand new can of warms - The way I see it, the law as it is written, does not give you the change for a due diligence defence, meaning that if you are accused of stunt driving by going over 50 the speed limit (strictly speeding), you can go to jail without the possibility of a reasonable defence and that is unconstitutional - It’s a loop hole that the very smart lawyer found and that it will benefit anyone charged with stunning for strictly speeding up to this point.

However, as soon as some of the language on the bill changes or they take the "going to prison" part out of the bill, then the bill becomes constitutional again and everyone else in the future is screwed.>>

Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation>>

[82Seca750]

The appeal was not regarding the seizure/impound of the vehicle and suspension. So he can't take issue with it and make a ruling on it.

correct

I'm trying to figure out how you could appeal a JP's decision based on the upfront penalties

assuming they find you 100% not guilty but refuse to reimburse...so then you appeal.

dunno....but if that's the game, then that's why it hasn't been argued yet....because imo, anyone let off 100% not guilty is probably just happy that their balls dropped back into their fruit-of-the-looms

[mazdubb]

correct

I'm trying to figure out how you could appeal a JP's decision based on the upfront penalties

assuming they find you 100% not guilty but refuse to reimburse...so then you appeal.

dunno....but if that's the game, then that's why it hasn't been argued yet....because imo, anyone let off 100% not guilty is probably just happy that their balls dropped back into their fruit-of-the-looms

It's looking more likely to me that a class action lawsuit is the only viable means to overturn the upfront penalties.

[Rob MacLennan]

Well done. I'll have to give it a read, when I find time.

[Jayv]

good read good find!!

NOTE to SELF: officer DOOLAN is A D!CK.

Usually i wouldn't agree with a statement that had the word dick in it, but really after reading the officers statement about the event......jeez how can an officer of the law really truly believe that this woman was stunt/street racing, and have to have the nerve to leave this old lady with her car impounded at the side of the road.

To serve and protect...............

What a shame.

[JoeyB]

correct

I'm trying to figure out how you could appeal a JP's decision based on the upfront penalties

assuming they find you 100% not guilty but refuse to reimburse...so then you appeal.

dunno....but if that's the game, then that's why it hasn't been argued yet....because imo, anyone let off 100% not guilty is probably just happy that their balls dropped back into their fruit-of-the-looms

I think someone whose convicted would have to tried to argue at the initial trial that the seizure and suspension are charter violations and have a JP reject the argument. Then they could try an appeal of the rejection of the charter violations.

[Brian P]

I don't see it that way; the officer was doing his job according to the way the laws have been set out. In my opinion, making a statement that there was nothing unusual or unsafe about the pass probably did the defendant a huge favor. He told it like it was and didn't dispute the defendant's argument that the truck sped up (which personally I find unlikely; a transport truck simply isn't capable of accelerating quickly at highway speed).

One of the best ways to have an unjust law set aside ... is to enforce it to the letter.

[Brian P]

other post came in while I was typing. It will take another, different case to challenge the seizure provisions. The way I read it, if this judgment holds, it throws out 90% of the cases since apparently the 50-over accounts for about 90%. If the legislation gets revised to remove the possibility of jail, we will be almost back to square one.

[JoeyB]

I don't see it that way; the officer was doing his job according to the way the laws have been set out. In my opinion, making a statement that there was nothing unusual or unsafe about the pass probably did the defendant a huge favor. He told it like it was and didn't dispute the defendant's argument that the truck sped up (which personally I find unlikely; a transport truck simply isn't capable of accelerating quickly at highway speed).

One of the best ways to have an unjust law set aside ... is to enforce it to the letter.

I agree, he was simply stating that the driver was only charged with the speeding violation of the act and not the section that covers "unreasonable lane changes".

[Squadz]

other post came in while I was typing. It will take another, different case to challenge the seizure provisions. The way I read it, if this judgment holds, it throws out 90% of the cases since apparently the 50-over accounts for about 90%. If the legislation gets revised to remove the possibility of jail, we will be almost back to square one.

After reading it, I'm slightly confused.

Are you saying that if I was simply charged with 50+, I would be able to win based on the fact that the jail time portion of the law violates my rights?

On another note, does the seizure at the side of the road not violate our rights as well?