2 minor tickets - consequence?

[suzuki2000]

Need some input from the insurance experts here

My son got dinged last night for a minor seeding ticket (heis 16 with G2/M2) in my car
Was given a 15 over in a 50 zone, cop also gave him a plate obstruction,you can read details here:
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?194251-Plate-obstruction-*********-ticket
Cop told him he dropped it by 5kph, so if he wants to fightit he will come to court and get the ticket back up. Nice tactic , I’ve alreadyestablished in my mind that the cop is a d!ck….

Anyways does the 15 over ticket plus the plate ticket screwhim over? i.e. 2 minor tickets? Is the plate fine considered a movingviolation? My car, so I will cover theplate fine, but might need to reconsider challenging this if it is going to putmy sons insurance (mine) at risk for two tickets.
FWIW: I have neverhad a ticket or at fault accident in over 25 years and squeaky clean record.

 

[Jimsun]

considering he is still a novice driver (not a full G) the demerit points system for them is different

https://www.ontario.ca/page/understanding-demerit-points

"You are considered a novice – or new – driver if you have a G1, G2, M1, M2, M1-L or M2-L licence. As a new driver, you face different consequences for adding demerit points."

It will increase his premium but not yours. You should consider fighting the ticket. Have them drop the speeding in exchange for the plate obstruction (highly unlikely) and then open an appeal for the license plate obstruction as it can be fought.

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08

"Number plates, further violationsNo other numbers to be exposed
13. (1) No number other than that upon the number plate furnished by the Ministry shall be exposed on any part of a motor vehicle or trailer in such a position or manner as to confuse the identity of the number plate. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 13 (1).


Number plate to be kept clean
(2) Every number plate shall be kept free from dirt and obstruction and shall be affixed so that the entire number plate, including the numbers, is plainly visible at all times, and the view of the number plate shall not be obscured or obstructed by spare tires, bumper bars, any part of the vehicle, any attachments to the vehicle or the load carried. 1994, c. 27, s. 138 (7)."

 

[hedo2002]

First, Quick question was your son driving over the limit? Was the plate obstructed as per the HTA? If the answer to both is yes then how is it the cop is a dick? He was doing exactly what he is paid to do, enforce the laws. He has superiors to answer to for his productivity levels, just as we all do. He didn't place the plate cover there, nor did he have control over the speed at which your car was driven. But yet it is his fault...

Now having said that, I get that it is frustrating for the obstructed plate, I got that exact same ticket last winter, while it had snowed the night before and the road crap at 5:30 am had obscured my plate after a 80 km highway commute, with a plate cover. I merely removed the plate cover, (taking photos before and after on the cell phone). When I attended first appearance crown dropped that ticket. If you do the same, then you will likley see the same result.

As for the speeding as you have properly stated your son owns that one, If he chooses to contest it and wins a valuable lesson, if he chooses to contest and loses, still a lesson, but likely not as valuable.

As to your original question even one minor conviction "can" affect your rates, it will depend upon the underwriting rules of your particular insurer, each company has their own rules they apply.

Good luck.

 

[statsman]

hedo is correct about the obstructed plate.
As to the speeding charge, if you go to court, the officer can't add on the speed he reduced the ticket by.
The ticket is the charge your son would be facing. It is not only a notification to the driver that a charge has been laid, it is also a court document.
Before the officer even gave evidence, he would be admitting that he has already lied to the court.
If he gives evidence that he knocked the speed down, he is again admitting deception.
At the same time, Justices don't like defendants who call Officers liars (even if they are).
Sounds like a little professional advice from Points or a similar agency might be a good investment.

 

[griff2]

As to the speeding charge, if you go to court, the officer can't add on the speed he reduced the ticket by.
The ticket is the charge your son would be facing. It is not only a notification to the driver that a charge has been laid, it is also a court document.
Before the officer even gave evidence, he would be admitting that he has already lied to the court.
If he gives evidence that he knocked the speed down, he is again admitting deception.
At the same time, Justices don't like defendants who call Officers liars (even if they are).
Sounds like a little professional advice from Points or a similar agency might be a good investment.

You are completely incorrect on just about all of this.

A cop issuing a lowered speed is not lying - he is simply using his discretion and the courts have ruled this permissible. The courts have also ruled that amending a ticket back up to the actual speed at trial is also permissible.

The initial Court of Appeal ruling for you to look up is Winlow 2009 ONCA 643 .

 

[hedo2002]

hedo is correct about the obstructed plate.
As to the speeding charge, if you go to court, the officer can't add on the speed he reduced the ticket by.
The ticket is the charge your son would be facing. It is not only a notification to the driver that a charge has been laid, it is also a court document.
Before the officer even gave evidence, he would be admitting that he has already lied to the court.
If he gives evidence that he knocked the speed down, he is again admitting deception.
At the same time, Justices don't like defendants who call Officers liars (even if they are).
Sounds like a little professional advice from Points or a similar agency might be a good investment.

Lots of discussion on here as well as Griff pointed out case law. The officer exercised his option of writing the ticket at a reduced speed, BUT if you request disclosure you will see his notes will reflect the actual speed the vehicle was clocked at. The crown will advise the OP's son at first appearance of the exact same thing the officer has already notified, which is if the ticket goes the a trial the crown will "amend" the charge to the original clocked speed. A ticket FYI is merely a "notice of infraction" it lays out the section of the HTA the OP's son was charged with. The speed written on the ticket is merely "an element of the charge" it is not the charge itself. The OP's son has been charged with speeding, not with say 65 in a 50 km/h zone. The charge of speeding technically covers all speeds from 1 km to infiniety, (theorectically).

This amending tactic has been ruled constituional and is used several thousands times a day in Ontario courts as a tactic to get accused to plea to the charge and therefore keep the court system operational.

Places like points, primarily operate on the premise of getting you the least, rather than actually defending the charge. If the OP's son was actually going say 20 km and the ticket written for 15 km over then there will be very little, (unless there was a GLARING screw up by the officer. IE they didn't note calibrating the radar or Lidar unit), Points will be able to accomplish. The difference beteen 20 km and 15 km over is pretty small in terms of the fine, there would be Licence points awarded for a conviction at 20 over not at 15 over. as for insurance hit it will be exactly the same at 20 as it is at 15, it is still a minor conviction.

 

[conundrum]

If you go to court, you are very likely fighting the non-reduced value/charge. This is why I find it so funny when someone gets caught doing 60 over, cop lowers it to 49 over, and they choose to fight it. Good way to turn a minor class ticket into a major class ticket if the court is not in your favour.

As for the plate, depending on how it was obstructed, I'd challenge that one or see if I could somehow get it dropped (like hedo mentioned). Not sure if the plate one counts as a moving violation either, but if it does, then there are license and insurance ramifications, but if not, then it is just a one time fine, like a parking ticket, unless you get it dropped.

 

[statsman]

hedo,
Such an act would require the prosecutor to ask the JP to amend the ticket.
The driver could object to this on the grounds that he has prepared a defence to a charge of 10 KM over the limit, not the 15 KM over the amendment would require.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

You are completely incorrect on just about all of this.

A cop issuing a lowered speed is not lying - he is simply using his discretion and the courts have ruled this permissible. The courts have also ruled that amending a ticket back up to the actual speed at trial is also permissible.

The initial Court of Appeal ruling for you to look up is Winlow 2009 ONCA 643 .

Agreed; precedent clearly shows that the speed can be amended back up. In this case it will effect points and money, but two convictions are enough to screw with insurance costs for a few years.

 

[griff2]

hedo,
Such an act would require the prosecutor to ask the JP to amend the ticket.
The driver could object to this on the grounds that he has prepared a defence to a charge of 10 KM over the limit, not the 15 KM over the amendment would require.

That kind of amending up (10 over up to 15 over) would not have any significant impact on how one would defend against the speeding charge. It's still just a speeding charge and speeding is an absolute liability offence with no provision for a due diligence or defence of necessity available. The defence against a 15 over would be no different than for 10 over, and as such no adjournment would be necessary or likely granted even if the accused did object.

If the amending up was from a speeding charge to a careless driving or HTA172 charge, then things change as those charges do allow far more avenues of defence than a simple speeding charge. This is where an adjournment would be appropriate and given to allow the accused time to formulate an alternate defence.

 

[hedo2002]

hedo,
Such an act would require the prosecutor to ask the JP to amend the ticket.
The driver could object to this on the grounds that he has prepared a defence to a charge of 10 KM over the limit, not the 15 KM over the amendment would require.

The accused may ask for an adjournment, but would likely be denied, as the offence itself has not been amended only the "elements of the charge" have been ammended, (IE from 10 over to 15 over). So the defence to the charge itself would remain the same as you are defending the charge not the "elements" of the charge. If the accused defences for example was that the radar unit wasn't calibrated properly, then that defence would remain weather the element aledged was 10 or 90 over. If the defence was "I wasn't going 15 over I was only going 10 over" that is not, (in the absence of actual evidence other than the accused statement), a viable defense. If the accused had a "viable" defence against 10 km then obviously the same defence would stand for 15 km over, (because if your not going 10 over then you certainly can't be doing 15 over)..lol

But even if the accused "objected" the very best outcome would be an adjournment not a dismissal of the charge. So I guess the accused could then waste another day in court. This adjournment would not count against a potential 11b defence as it was the accused who requested on the grounds they were not prepared.

Lastly, the accused couldn't use the "this was sprung" on me just today approach as the crown always advises that if you contest the ticket they will be proceeding with the original elements of the charge, at first appearance. So in effect the accused had prior knowledge of the impending amendment and chose to go that route, with that knowledge at hand.

 

[statsman]

The defence is not required to disclose any aspect of their case to the prosecution (except in certain situations).
The defendant refusing to agree to the amendment for the reason I stated would mean the prosecutor would have to satisfy the Justice that an amendment is necessary.
The defendant's response to the prosecutor's argument would be that the amendment is only being requested because he is insisting upon his right to a trial.
Therefore any amendment to the charge would predjudise his right to a fair trial.
Your responses are correct according to the law hedo, but there is a lot more to the law than what's written on a page.

 

[griff2]

The defence is not required to disclose any aspect of their case to the prosecution (except in certain situations).
The defendant refusing to agree to the amendment for the reason I stated would mean the prosecutor would have to satisfy the Justice that an amendment is necessary.
The defendant's response to the prosecutor's argument would be that the amendment is only being requested because he is insisting upon his right to a trial.
Therefore any amendment to the charge would predjudise his right to a fair trial.
Your responses are correct according to the law hedo, but there is a lot more to the law than what's written on a page.

Case law doesn't support what you say. The accused does not have to agree to the amendment. The prosecutor does not have to satisfy the JP that an amendment is "necessary", only that the available evidence supports the amended charge.

Look it up. Winlow. Ontario Court of Appeal. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca643/2009onca643.html

 

[hedo2002]

There is no provision in the justice system, that states that the accused has to "agree to the amendment". Otherwise you shoot someone and are charged with attempted murder, but while awaiting trial the victim dies from the injuries received and the crown then amends the charge to murder. The accused can't state that they don't agree with the amended charge. Now obviously I am using a VERY different scenario to make the point but the principle is the same.

Despite your contention that this is not proper, the courts have ruled as has been pointed out several times by myself and others in this thread that this is permissible. There is no hinderance to a "fair trial" as the accused is still permitted to offer a defence to the charge, (which again is still the SAME charge, (speeding), it is only the "elements of the charge", which have been amended. The accused is notified WELL in advance of the crown's intent to seek the amendment, therefore the accused should be preparing their defence based upon the amended elements of the charge, not the original elements.

This procedure is employed to "encourage" the accused to accept a plea and keep the justice system flowing smoothly. The accused is not prejudiced, as they are merely required, (should they chose to go to trial), to defend agianst the offence that they did indeed commit, (15 over the limit), as opposed to the offered lower amount (10 over). They were indeed traveling at the speed of 15 over at the time the offence was committed.

No there is not "more to the law" than what is written on paper. Again the crown is NOT amending the charge to a different charge, (in this case). Although that too has been ruled proper by the courts, (if your traveling at 65 km/h over the limit and charged with speeding at 49 km/h over), and go to trial the crown can amend the charge up to a charge of s172. BUT in that case the accused would be permitted an adjournment to prepare a defence as the charge in that case has changed.

The defence is not required to disclose any aspect of their case to the prosecution (except in certain situations).
The defendant refusing to agree to the amendment for the reason I stated would mean the prosecutor would have to satisfy the Justice that an amendment is necessary.
The defendant's response to the prosecutor's argument would be that the amendment is only being requested because he is insisting upon his right to a trial.
Therefore any amendment to the charge would predjudise his right to a fair trial.
Your responses are correct according to the law hedo, but there is a lot more to the law than what's written on a page.

 

[nobbie48]

The kid is 16, G2 and driving 20 over the limit. The ink isn't dry on his license and he's driving 40% over the limit.

The cop isn't being a dick. He's ***** slapping the kid into reality.

 

[Baggsy]

The kid is 16, G2 and driving 20 over the limit. The ink isn't dry on his license and he's driving 40% over the limit.

The cop isn't being a dick. He's ***** slapping the kid into reality.

20 over in a 50 zone, is quite a lot. 50 zones tend to have more pedestrian traffic and be built up.
It could have been worse if it was a 40 school zone, but its best to stay close to the limit in most 50 zones anyways.
Save 20 over for the highway, you're more likely to get away with it in a 100 zone.