Topic: Steering You Right: A good reason for not stopping

[Autos_Editor]

A driver ticketed for not stopping at a Stop sign had an unusual, but successful defence.

Read More...

[richink]

This is an old one.

Years ago I had a car that when driven over about 80 km/h the speedo would waltz all over the place. I eventually cured it by replacing the speedo cable but not before some moron cop wrote me a ticket for doing 126 km/h on the 417 just outside of Ottawa. My thoughts at the time were centered around seriously, there must be bigger fish in the sea than me (only 26 clicks over on a 400 series highway) and the fact that I'd have to blow off an afternoon in court fighting the damn ticket.

It in fact was much simpler than I thought. The judge didn't even want to see the repair bill or the large plastic bag that contained what was left of that crapped out speedo cable. The fact that I came to speak to him intelligently with evidence in hand was good enough. That and there were a couple of other people there claiming mechanical issues, including a guy with a stuck motorcycle throttle.

[kirm]

What's this trash about a Police Officer not having to appear in court?!?!?! They do the affidavit thing for Photo Radar Operators in this backward province but, if charged by a cop he has to show up in court. If he doesn't then you walk. It seems Ontario has taken the next bold step in taking away our rights while insuring that we remain an excellent cash machine.

[articsteve]

Police in Ontario cannot submit an Affidavit and be done with it.  The Defendant does have the right to question the Officer.

BTW, if the Officer does not show, the Judge can just postpone the trial to another date.  This is often the case in rural jurisdictions that have light case loads.  In the cities, the simple cases always get dismissed.

[AP]

The failure of the officer to appear should have been sufficient in and of itself to justify an acquittal.  An accused person's ability to test the prosecution's case, including cross-examining the officer, is essential to the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

[nlm]

The failure of the officer to appear should have been sufficient in and of itself to justify an acquittal.  An accused person's ability to test the prosecution's case, including cross-examining the officer, is essential to the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

True but the officer's testimony and any related cross is irrelevant in the cited case in relation to the case of this defendant. The officer didn't do a 'no-show' but "...the police officer was not subpoenaed by either side..."  The appearance of the officer did not affect the defendant's ability to make a full defence in this case.

[AP]

True but the officer's testimony and any related cross is irrelevant in the cited case in relation to the case of this defendant. The officer didn't do a 'no-show' but "...the police officer was not subpoenaed by either side..."  The appearance of the officer did not affect the defendant's ability to make a full defence in this case.

It is my understanding that the prosecution needs statutory authority to proceed by way of affidavit evidence.  I am not aware of any such authority for highway traffic offences (though others with expertise in the area can express an opinion). 

Besides, this is analogous to the defendant coming to court with affidavits from, say, 10 witnesses swearing that he did indeed stop at the stop sign.  Do you think the prosecution is not going to object to the lost opportunity to test such evidence through cross examination?

[zekele]

What's this trash about a Police Officer not having to appear in court?!?!?! They do the affidavit thing for Photo Radar Operators in this backward province but, if charged by a cop he has to show up in court. If he doesn't then you walk. It seems Ontario has taken the next bold step in taking away our rights while insuring that we remain an excellent cash machine.

I assume the case was in Quebec and not Ontario. In Quebec the officer does not need to be present in court in most cases. The defendant can ask for the presence of the officer, but if the officer's oral testimony does not significantly add information to the case as presented in the written evidence, the defendant can be held liable for all the costs of assigning the officer.

[AP]

I assume the case was in Quebec and not Ontario. In Quebec the officer does not need to be present in court in most cases. The defendant can ask for the presence of the officer, but if the officer's oral testimony does not significantly add information to the case as presented in the written evidence, the defendant can be held liable for all the costs of assigning the officer.

Wow - gotta love our civil liberty loving colleagues in Quebec.  One of the very points of cross-examining the officer is to discover whether this will reveal relevant information.  If no relevant info is rendered it does not follow that the accused wasted the officer's time and should absorb the associated costs.  The opportunity to test the prosecution's case has procedural value even where the accused is ultimately convicted.  It is a necessary cost of the administration of justice and is properly born by the state.

[Shnak]

What's this trash about a Police Officer not having to appear in court?!?!?! They do the affidavit thing for Photo Radar Operators in this backward province but, if charged by a cop he has to show up in court. If he doesn't then you walk. It seems Ontario has taken the next bold step in taking away our rights while insuring that we remain an excellent cash machine.

I assume the case was in Quebec and not Ontario. In Quebec the officer does not need to be present in court in most cases. The defendant can ask for the presence of the officer, but if the officer's oral testimony does not significantly add information to the case as presented in the written evidence, the defendant can be held liable for all the costs of assigning the officer.

Finally! Something that makes more sense in Quebec than the rest of Canada! I hate people who want to take advantage of the system, and what Quebec does here prevents some of that. Awesome!

[AP]

Finally! Something that makes more sense in Quebec than the rest of Canada! I hate people who want to take advantage of the system, and what Quebec does here prevents some of that. Awesome!

Take advantage of the system by exercising a constitutional right to put the prosecution's case to the test?  You and I will just never agree on this issue (primarily b/c you are obviously wrong ).

[Shnak]

Finally! Something that makes more sense in Quebec than the rest of Canada! I hate people who want to take advantage of the system, and what Quebec does here prevents some of that. Awesome!

Take advantage of the system by exercising a constitutional right to put the prosecution's case to the test?  You and I will just never agree on this issue (primarily b/c you are obviously wrong ).

You can do just that in Quebec apparently... request to have the officer show up, but be ready to reimburse his wasted time when you lose your case.

[AP]

You can do just that in Quebec apparently... request to have the officer show up, but be ready to reimburse his wasted time when you lose your case.

You are making the classic mistake of assuming the trial has no value just because the accused is ultimately found guilty.

[Shnak]

You can do just that in Quebec apparently... request to have the officer show up, but be ready to reimburse his wasted time when you lose your case.

You are making the classic mistake of assuming the trial has no value just because the accused is ultimately found guilty.

Not my point. My point is that idiots who get caught going 30 over, or parked illegally, shouldn't clutter up the courtrooms hoping they get off easy when the officer has better things to do in his life than show up in court to defend a $100 fine. There should be a rule that if the officer does show up, and your fine doesn't get reduced/tossed away, you should have to pay a $1000 penalty fee for wasting everyone's time. Don't you have better things to do with your life than waste half a day going in court to dispute a $100 ticket you clearly deserve? Come on.

[AP]

You can do just that in Quebec apparently... request to have the officer show up, but be ready to reimburse his wasted time when you lose your case.

You are making the classic mistake of assuming the trial has no value just because the accused is ultimately found guilty.

Not my point. My point is that idiots who get caught going 30 over, or parked illegally, shouldn't clutter up the courtrooms hoping they get off easy when the officer has better things to do in his life than show up in court to defend a $100 fine. There should be a rule that if the officer does show up, and your fine doesn't get reduced/tossed away, you should have to pay a $1000 penalty fee for wasting everyone's time. Don't you have better things to do with your life than waste half a day going in court to dispute a $100 ticket you clearly deserve? Come on.

Saying that the accused is "wasting everyone's time" if found guilty is just another way of saying that the trial services no valuable purpose if the accused is ultimately found guilty.  The penalty for being found guilty is that you pay the fine associated with the offence - not for the process of finding you guilty. 

The $1,000 fine you propose is ludicrous.  Law and order types with such dismissive views of due process are precisely why we have constitutionally protected rights.

[Shnak]

Be honest, of every 100 traffic case heard in court, how many of them would you guess are guys hoping the officer doesn't show up and so he gets a reduced fine or thrown out altogether?

I know a guy here at work that goes to traffic court every year with 7-8 parking tickets. The officer doesn't show up, all thrown out. Every year. Like clockwork. It's a joke, an absolute joke.

When I get a ticket, I suck it up and pay it. I don't blame the cop who's doing his job, I take the blame and pay the ticket.

[AP]

...of every 100 traffic case heard in court, how many of them would you guess are guys hoping the officer doesn't show up and so he gets a reduced fine or thrown out altogether?

Wrong question.  This is what you should be asking: If your proposed $1,000 fine is accepted, then of every 100 traffic tickets issued, how many of them would be issued by police officers pushing the envelope of the law in the hope that the accused cannot risk the $1,000 fine for unsucessfully challenging the offence?  You should never design rules of criminal procedure based on the assumption of a guilty accused person.

[Shnak]

...of every 100 traffic case heard in court, how many of them would you guess are guys hoping the officer doesn't show up and so he gets a reduced fine or thrown out altogether?

Wrong question.  This is what you should be asking: If your proposed $1,000 fine is accepted, then of every 100 traffic tickets issued, how many of them would be issued by police officers pushing the envelope of the law in the hope that the accused cannot risk the $1,000 fine for unsucessfully challenging the offence?  You should never design rules of criminal procedure based on the assumption of a guilty accused person.

Fair enough. But there has something that can be done. Maybe give the judge the ability to hand out fines if he determines the acuser tried to abuse the system?

[AP]

Fair enough. But there has something that can be done. Maybe give the judge the ability to hand out fines if he determines the acuser tried to abuse the system?

My guess is that the problem is not rampant because the vast majority of people simply pay the fines (whether guilty or not).

[blur911]

Fair enough. But there has something that can be done. Maybe give the judge the ability to hand out fines if he determines the acuser tried to abuse the system?

My guess is that the problem is not rampant because the vast majority of people simply pay the fines (whether guilty or not).

What problem?  Half the time it's the police officer who tells you to go to court and fight it, like my last ticket. 
Perhaps the police shouldn't be issuing so many questionable tickets so that they can go to court on their days off to collect overtime pay.

If I was playing Imperious Beloved Leader maybe I'd be fining the police for wasting peoples time and money...  But then again, despots usually need an unquestionable unaccountable police force to have things run smoothly. Arbitrary fining and maybe imprisonment of anyone who dares to question your authority is obviously the only way to go. Show me your papers