Relax
Well-known member
Yup, happens all the time. This is where video footage of your interaction with the officer(s) would come in handy.
|
|
|
Being caught afterwards
- Thread starter Kiwi40
- Start date
OR ""we didnt get a plate" told to you roadside" was his first chance at self incrimination.
Thanks, low res can go both ways, the less it looks like my friend makes it harder to prove, bump it low and it could be santa claus if you get my drift and evidence has to be unquestionable and clear beyond any reasonable doubt.
I will let you know how it turns out.
As an ex copper, I can also tell you watch what you wish for GPS evidence "can" in the future work against you. Just like having a dash cam, can save your butt OR it can screw you royaly... Just ask the fools who post videos of themselves doing stupid crap...lmao
I suspect if you bring you maps tracking history up in court, that would open the door for them to request the data and time to review prior to proceeding. On the other hand, they may have rehearsed arguments that keep it out (hard to prove you had phone, data tampering, data resolution, etc). A good traffic lawyer should know the pros and cons of bringing it up.
Relax
Well-known member
I was going to use a print-out from Google maps as evidence to defend my wife's "improper turn" charge at trial, but the police officer didn't show up. When the prosecutor requested another date, I objected, saying that I was ready to proceed, and I said something about having my evidence ready to go. JP said to me - there's a process to enter things into evidence at trial, so you clearly aren't prepared.
Where did you disappear to?
They didn't get the plate, they threw an obstruct plate ticket in to as it wasn't clear so he is guilty of that. Nothing else sticks.
I was under the impression the whole cop not showing up to court so the tickets beat is no longer a thing. The crown prosecutor can go ahead with his notes and disclosure and can continue the court case on his own without the actual officer in question. Obviously in a case that needs a lot more first hand information the crown could choose to drop it, but I still thought they always have the option to go ahead with the case.
Nope
There has to be a witness to the crime to testify to the facts of the crime
In traffic tickets, which are "absolute liability" crimes, someone has to testify that the one that did the crime is the one that got served the ticket and the person in court is that one.
... which means if you get a radar ticket like Peggy outlines, there has to be at least TWO officers to testify against you. One for the elements of the ticket and the other for service.
Nope, you have the right to face your accuser and they have to be available for questioning. That being said, typically these court dates are scheduled for days the cop is not on ‘duty’ so they have little real reason not to show. Last I heard they are being internally disciplined if they do not.
I believe "right to face your accuser" is an American thing and not in Canadian law. I tried looking it up a while ago and couldn't find proof of it in Canada. I may be wrong however.
The phrase "right to face your accuser" is from The US constitution's 6th amendment.
The concept comes from British Common Law... which is the basis for Canadian and US law.
We do it.
You "NEED" the accuser in court to examine their accusations
You would have a hard time cross examining a deposition
If you don't get the chance to question the accuser, what is the purpose of going to court, or even why would you NEED court, if the accusers statement cannot be challenged?
... and then there's "camera" tickets, which you can't argue BUT no points and no record on your abstract makes that ALL BETTER.
Police officers have regularly scheduled, (2 days a month for traffic cops for metro, IIRC) that are "DUTY". It's a regular, scheduled, day at work and they are expected to be there and will be STRONGLY disciplined if they don't show up... strongly disciplined like as in FIRED. Showing up for work is kinda a condition of employment.
The concept comes from British Common Law... which is the basis for Canadian and US law.
We do it.
You "NEED" the accuser in court to examine their accusations
You would have a hard time cross examining a deposition
If you don't get the chance to question the accuser, what is the purpose of going to court, or even why would you NEED court, if the accusers statement cannot be challenged?
... and then there's "camera" tickets, which you can't argue BUT no points and no record on your abstract makes that ALL BETTER.
Police officers have regularly scheduled, (2 days a month for traffic cops for metro, IIRC) that are "DUTY". It's a regular, scheduled, day at work and they are expected to be there and will be STRONGLY disciplined if they don't show up... strongly disciplined like as in FIRED. Showing up for work is kinda a condition of employment.
Bitzz, that's kind of what I figured, but I couldn't find it explicitly referred to in a quick search. My concern when I was looking for it was related to bylaw stuff. Our local municipality says they only look for violations (noise, fires, trailers etc.) when reported to them. I don't believe it and think the officers go around looking for violators, especially if you've been tagged before. I wanted to see my "accuser". i.e. the person that called it in, but couldn't see that I had that right. Probably moot, as they would claim the officer is the accuser. This was hypothetical in advance of an issue I thought might come up but didn't.
bingo, your accuser would be whoever laid the charges if it was law related. civil matter it would be your neighbor.
Agree. When I have talked to by-law officers before, they needed to personally witness the infraction. The person that told them to come look is immaterial to the charge. If things get more complicated and by-law requires expert help to assess the situation, it would be reasonable that the officer and the expert were available to the court.
Found this in https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov...hearings/exhibits/Wendy_Harvey/pdf/59_CNH.pdf "On the issue of an accused's right to face one's accuser, the Supreme Court said that this is not an absolute right, and absence of face-to-face confrontation during trial does not infringe any principle of fundamental justice."
There is this though, in another document relating to the right to face an accuser, " a right on which the Canadian Charter is silent. Section 7 of the Charter , whose protection the appellant claims, simply refers to the all-encompassing concept of "principles of fundamental justice".
So, still a grey area.
There is this though, in another document relating to the right to face an accuser, " a right on which the Canadian Charter is silent. Section 7 of the Charter , whose protection the appellant claims, simply refers to the all-encompassing concept of "principles of fundamental justice".
So, still a grey area.
While they brought up the absence of face-to-face confrontation, if you could ask reasonable questions that nobody in court was able to answer that swings the pendulum in your favor. Now, without a witness to question, I don't know how you get those questions officially raised in court.
|
|
|
|
|