Big ass ticket

[ddusseld]

Re: Big *** ticket

Would you answer my question? Why do they amend it to a higher value then the great deal they are giving you at the side of the road?

I'm not nor will I ever be an expert on the charter. If it is not against your rights to have the court take actions to make going to court unpalatable then I'm wrong.

They don't amend it to a "higher value" they simply amend it to the ACTUAL value, (as will be presented in evidence). So many here complain about cops lying on the stand. So is the cop in a trial supposed to get up and lie because it benefits YOU? Can't have it both ways.
Please feel free to post the section of the charter which says you have a RIGHT not to be "intimidated". This is a silly premise that your "intimidated". Virtually the same as those who bring human rights cases because "their FEELINGS" were hurt.

If being offered a "deal" is intimidating to you then I assume you avoid "no tax" sales as this must be so intimidating that one must avoid it. Again the crown merely advises you they are willing to accept a plea to a lower charge. It is STILL your RIGHT to go to trial. Therefore NO RIGHTS have been denied.

So again I ask you to post the section of the charter which says you have the RIGHT not to be "intimidated". Being "intimidated" is a FEELING there are NO charter protections of your FEELINGS.

Again this has all been challenged and found by higher courts to be an acceptable practice within the legal system. I am pretty sure if it violated ANY rights the court would have ruled differently.

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

Would you answer my question? Why do they amend it to a higher value then the great deal they are giving you at the side of the road?

I'm not nor will I ever be an expert on the charter. If it is not against your rights to have the court take actions to make going to court unpalatable then I'm wrong.

I DID answer your question.....

If it goes to trial, then the officer HAS to testify to the TRUTH, to all elements of the charge, (which would include the speed at which you were recorded). Therefore, they MUST amend the charge to reflect the ACTUAL speed, of the offence. Hence they can no longer charge you with say 65 in a 50 when in fact the evidence as presented UNDER OATH will reflect that you were actually clocked at say 73 in a 50.

So that is why it has been ruled proper, and not a violation or "eroding" of anyones rights you simply don't have the "right" to be "offered" a deal, and pass on that deal then expect to, (if convicted), still get the deal.

Bottom line is it is a DEAL no one is forced to accept it. If you don't accept the "deal" then you have the RIGHT to expect the officer testify truthfully during the trial.

Funny people want cops to testify truthfully, (except when it negatively affects THEM). People want a deal offered, then also to go to trial and get the same deal. You have to choose one or the other not BOTH. Personally I would prefer the crown NOT offer a deal, and if they wish, everyone go to trial, and pay for what they ACTUALLY did.

I assume you understand the concept of a "deal". It is merely an incentive, (like a sale).

What advantage to the public is "served" by offering a "deal". It saves court resources, (Higher taxes if everyone went to trial, more crowns, more JP's, more officers as others are tied up in court). The members of the public who want to acknowledge and take responsibility for their offence, get to leave with the knowledge they aren't paying the ACTUAL costs of the offence.

If you don't believe you have commited the offence as charged then you have a RIGHT to full and fair trial. Have at it, your rights remain intact.

 

[woodgo]

Re: Big *** ticket

I DID answer your question.....

If it goes to trial, then the officer HAS to testify to the TRUTH, to all elements of the charge, (which would include the speed at which you were recorded). Therefore, they MUST amend the charge to reflect the ACTUAL speed, of the offence. Hence they can no longer charge you with say 65 in a 50 when in fact the evidence as presented UNDER OATH will reflect that you were actually clocked at say 73 in a 50.

So that is why it has been ruled proper, and not a violation or "eroding" of anyones rights you simply don't have the "right" to be "offered" a deal, and pass on that deal then expect to, (if convicted), still get the deal.

Bottom line is it is a DEAL no one is forced to accept it. If you don't accept the "deal" then you have the RIGHT to expect the officer testify truthfully during the trial.

Funny people want cops to testify truthfully, (except when it negatively affects THEM). People want a deal offered, then also to go to trial and get the same deal. You have to choose one or the other not BOTH. Personally I would prefer the crown NOT offer a deal, and if they wish, everyone go to trial, and pay for what they ACTUALLY did.

I assume you understand the concept of a "deal". It is merely an incentive, (like a sale).

What advantage to the public is "served" by offering a "deal". It saves court resources, (Higher taxes if everyone went to trial, more crowns, more JP's, more officers as others are tied up in court). The members of the public who want to acknowledge and take responsibility for their offence, get to leave with the knowledge they aren't paying the ACTUAL costs of the offence.

If you don't believe you have commited the offence as charged then you have a RIGHT to full and fair trial. Have at it, your rights remain intact.

Well Said!

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Big *** ticket

I DID answer your question.....

If it goes to trial, then the officer HAS to testify to the TRUTH, to all elements of the charge, (which would include the speed at which you were recorded). Therefore, they MUST amend the charge to reflect the ACTUAL speed, of the offence. Hence they can no longer charge you with say 65 in a 50 when in fact the evidence as presented UNDER OATH will reflect that you were actually clocked at say 73 in a 50.

So that is why it has been ruled proper, and not a violation or "eroding" of anyones rights you simply don't have the "right" to be "offered" a deal, and pass on that deal then expect to, (if convicted), still get the deal.

Bottom line is it is a DEAL no one is forced to accept it. If you don't accept the "deal" then you have the RIGHT to expect the officer testify truthfully during the trial.

Funny people want cops to testify truthfully, (except when it negatively affects THEM). People want a deal offered, then also to go to trial and get the same deal. You have to choose one or the other not BOTH. Personally I would prefer the crown NOT offer a deal, and if they wish, everyone go to trial, and pay for what they ACTUALLY did.

I assume you understand the concept of a "deal". It is merely an incentive, (like a sale).

What advantage to the public is "served" by offering a "deal". It saves court resources, (Higher taxes if everyone went to trial, more crowns, more JP's, more officers as others are tied up in court). The members of the public who want to acknowledge and take responsibility for their offence, get to leave with the knowledge they aren't paying the ACTUAL costs of the offence.

If you don't believe you have commited the offence as charged then you have a RIGHT to full and fair trial. Have at it, your rights remain intact.

Actually no, they are not *required* to amend the speed upward. It's an option, that has been supported by court decision. There's a world of difference between the two. The majority of charges seem to still go to court at the reduced speed with the stick of increasing the speed (and attendant points/fine) being used against the carrot of quick resolution.

The increase has been considered the equivalent of a roadside plea deal with The Crown. For myself, I don't see it as being the same because The Crown is in no way involved, and police should not be involved in the prosecution of law rather only in its enforcement, but that's not how it has played out in court.

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

Actually no, they are not *required* to amend the speed upward. It's an option, that has been supported by court decision. There's a world of difference between the two. The majority of charges seem to still go to court at the reduced speed with the stick of increasing the speed (and attendant points/fine) being used against the carrot of quick resolution.

The increase has been considered the equivalent of a roadside plea deal with The Crown. For myself, I don't see it as being the same because The Crown is in no way involved, and police should not be involved in the prosecution of law rather only in its enforcement, but that's not how it has played out in court.

I was told by a crown that they MUST go back to the original speed when going to trial. This way the officer can truthfully testify as to the vehicles speed. He used the exact scenario I laid out in my post. He said if the officer testified that the vehicle was clocked at 73 but the charge in fornt of the JP was for 65, the the officer has "technically" not testified truthfully as to the charge in front of the court.

He said this "could" present an option for the JP to dismiss the charge, or the accused "could" appeal, (weather the appeal would be sucessful is in my mind questionable).

Personally I used to knock the speed down roadside not in hopes of an "easy" conviction, but rather, to make the driver "feel" a little better. Most people will be "happy" to see they were given a break. Generally, it was met with a thank you, but not always...lol

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Big *** ticket

I was told by a crown that they MUST go back to the original speed when going to trial. This way the officer can truthfully testify as to the vehicles speed. He used the exact scenario I laid out in my post. He said if the officer testified that the vehicle was clocked at 73 but the charge in fornt of the JP was for 65, the the officer has "technically" not testified truthfully as to the charge in front of the court.

He said this "could" present an option for the JP to dismiss the charge, or the accused "could" appeal, (weather the appeal would be sucessful is in my mind questionable).

Personally I used to knock the speed down roadside not in hopes of an "easy" conviction, but rather, to make the driver "feel" a little better. Most people will be "happy" to see they were given a break. Generally, it was met with a thank you, but not always...lol

Check the case, that set precedent. No such requirement is stated. In fact the infraction for any speed is "speeding", with the speed used to set the monetary penalty.

 

[Beekman]

How about you just don't do 130 in a 60, and if you get caught accept the fact that you chose to break the law!

These kinds of actions give a bad name to all motorcyclists. It's funny how its usually the people who speed like this complaining about how the province hates motorcyclists......why the hell do you think they do?

 

[nfq]

Re: Big *** ticket

How about you just don't do 130 in a 60, and if you get caught accept the fact that you chose to break the law!

These kinds of actions give a bad name to all motorcyclists. It's funny how its usually the people who speed like this complaining about how the province hates motorcyclists......why the hell do you think they do?

23 y/o kid in a mustang was booked doing 134 in a 60 this morning in hamilton. Unlike OP's scenario, they took the car, HTA 172, the works. Dumb move considering they were doing a school blitz speed trap.

 

[Beekman]

Well it sucks but we make decisions, we face consequences. How we react to those consequences is what defines us. We all know the rules, whether they are "fair" or not is irrelevant. Want no speed limit? Move to Germany for the autobahn

 

[griff2]

Re: Big *** ticket

Would you answer my question? Why do they amend it to a higher value then the great deal they are giving you at the side of the road?

If the roadside speed discount deal isn't good enough for you, you reject it by going to trial. If you reject the deal offered, why wouldn't you expect the other side to revert to square one by rescinding the speed discount?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Big *** ticket

How about you just don't do 130 in a 60, and if you get caught accept the fact that you chose to break the law!

These kinds of actions give a bad name to all motorcyclists. It's funny how its usually the people who speed like this complaining about how the province hates motorcyclists......why the hell do you think they do?

How about this: If you want to tell people to just suck it up and pay, find another part of the forum in which to do it. This is a place for people who are seeking help.

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...-The-Rules-Things-to-assume-when-posting-here

 

[K4D4]

Ok it's pretty much 50/50... Who is the best ticket lawyer to call anybody know? Also what a lot of people are forgetting is that the cop already reduced it to 109 from 130 something to make it 49 under ... I talked to an ex cop and he said the cop will show up and try to **** me over with the original charge. I'm going to go talk to the prosecutor and see what he says about this but I could def use a good lawyer to call


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MarcosSantiago]

Re: Big *** ticket

They can apply to amend the charge to whatever the evidence supports. That has already been tested and supported by previous court rulings including an appeal's court ruling in R. v Wanamaker that sets the precedent for the lower courts to follow.

The evidence in this would be that he was doing 70 km over, and that evidence would support charges of S128 speeding and HTA172 stunt driving.

Assuming that he lacked evidence and that he issued a ticket for a lower speed so he wouldn't have to lie under oath is wishful thinking. Issuing a ticket for something that did not happen and lying under oath are pretty much the same thing. If he would do one, he wouldn't have much problem doing the other too.

Sorry I am late to make a comment regarding this topic.

On Sept 2009, the Court of Appeal of Ontario made public its ruling on the Winlow case (mentioned above already). The higher court "found that traffic courts can change the documented speed to the speed with which offending driver was actually travelling — a procedure known as "amending up."

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...tml?autocompleteStr=winlow &autocompletePos=1

So, changing the speed to the original reading is a possibility and under the discretion of the JP. However... as per this ruling, amending the charge up is not up to the Crown, much less the police officer. And amending the charge up is not easy, there are a number of checks and conditions.

The court shall, in considering whether or not an amendment should be made, consider,

(a) the evidence taken on the trial, if any;
(b) the circumstances of the case;
(c) whether the defendant has been misled or prejudiced in the defendant's defence by a variance, error or omission; and
(d) whether, having regard to the merits of the case, the proposed amendment can be made without injustice being done.

The issue of prejudice and fairness is central to the amendment and the Winlow case. Starting at [70], the court explains different consideration of what they mean.

[70] The court must consider whether the defendant is misled or prejudiced by the proposed amendment... etc. etc. etc.


IMO, In a case like this one, amending back to 172 stunt driving shall not be possible, because it causes prejudice and injustice that cannot be "cured" by a simple adjournment.

 

[ZX600]

Re: Big *** ticket

Speeds double the speed limit, then stops when the police asks him to!?! , is given a break and now wants to test his luck..

They should make a movie and cast Nicolas Cage

 

[griff2]

Re: Big *** ticket

IMO, In a case like this one, amending back to 172 stunt driving shall not be possible, because it causes prejudice and injustice that cannot be "cured" by a simple adjournment.

If the evidence fits, why wouldn't it be possible to amend up to HTA172? The simple possibility of harsher penalties would not be considered prejudice or injustice on its own provided that the accused is given reasonable notice and opportunity to adjust any defence to be offered to the charge.

Providing an adjournment should provide sufficient remedy to any potential prejudice or injustice that might otherwise be caused by amending up from HTA128 to HTA172. HTA172 is a strict liability offence that opens up defence possibilities that are not available under an HTA128 charge and its absolute liability offence classification.

An adjournment would provide the necessary opportunity to obtain counsel and examine any impact that the different charge would pose to both potential penalties and potential defence avenues.

 

[K4D4]

Re: Big *** ticket

Speeds double the speed limit, then stops when the police asks him to!?! , is given a break and now wants to test his luck..

They should make a movie and cast Nicolas Cage

Gs500 bro I wouldn't be quick enough to get away and there was cops everywhere they all came to the scene


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tricky]

Re: Big *** ticket

It takes a lot of hard work and dedication to get a GS500 to 130, that ain't no accident

 

[daught]

Re: Big *** ticket

Wait since when is 49 over major? I thought only a few ins companies considered 30 over major. Most treat 1-49 over the same, no?

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

Yes to amend the charge of speeding back to the "ACTUAL value" as described in the ruling you cited is "technically" up to the JP. But 99.9% of the time the JP will permit it BEFORE the trial actually statrs when the crown "asks the court" to read out the amended charge.

I do however agree with your assesment, that the crown can't simply "AMEND" the charge from S128 speeding 49 km over to S172 stunt driving. Given that first appearances happen well within the six month statute, what they "may" do is simply withdraw the charge of 49 over and lay a new information, (charge), under s172. This would then be ajourned to permit the accused to be served. The accused would then be treated as if they had just been charged they would get a first attendance on the "new" charge etc. Therefore, no prejudice or injustice. Is it likely they will go this route? it is a crap shoot, would basically come down to what the crown and cop decide on the spot. But don't look for favorable outcome from the officer nor crown.

It IS much more likely the crown will merely seek an amendment back to the original speed. Of course even though it is not S172 charge it WILL still be treated as a MAJOR conviction under ALL insurers guidelines.

Sorry I am late to make a comment regarding this topic.

On Sept 2009, the Court of Appeal of Ontario made public its ruling on the Winlow case (mentioned above already). The higher court "found that traffic courts can change the documented speed to the speed with which offending driver was actually travelling — a procedure known as "amending up."

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...tml?autocompleteStr=winlow &autocompletePos=1

So, changing the speed to the original reading is a possibility and under the discretion of the JP. However... as per this ruling, amending the charge up is not up to the Crown, much less the police officer. And amending the charge up is not easy, there are a number of checks and conditions.

The court shall, in considering whether or not an amendment should be made, consider,

(a) the evidence taken on the trial, if any;
(b) the circumstances of the case;
(c) whether the defendant has been misled or prejudiced in the defendant's defence by a variance, error or omission; and
(d) whether, having regard to the merits of the case, the proposed amendment can be made without injustice being done.

The issue of prejudice and fairness is central to the amendment and the Winlow case. Starting at [70], the court explains different consideration of what they mean.

[70] The court must consider whether the defendant is misled or prejudiced by the proposed amendment... etc. etc. etc.


IMO, In a case like this one, amending back to 172 stunt driving shall not be possible, because it causes prejudice and injustice that cannot be "cured" by a simple adjournment.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Big *** ticket

If the evidence fits, why wouldn't it be possible to amend up to HTA172? The simple possibility of harsher penalties would not be considered prejudice or injustice on its own provided that the accused is given reasonable notice and opportunity to adjust any defence to be offered to the charge.

Providing an adjournment should provide sufficient remedy to any potential prejudice or injustice that might otherwise be caused by amending up from HTA128 to HTA172. HTA172 is a strict liability offence that opens up defence possibilities that are not available under an HTA128 charge and its absolute liability offence classification.

An adjournment would provide the necessary opportunity to obtain counsel and examine any impact that the different charge would pose to both potential penalties and potential defence avenues.

A couple of reasons:

The first is that, the way HTA 172 and ONT REG 455/07 are written, they must be prosecuted immediately. At least as soon as is practicable. This has most notably been breached in cases, in which a police officer has been so charged while on duty.

The second is that it creates a situation in which the law is most definitely being used as a stick, to try and stop an accused from availing himself of his Charter Rights. A simple speeding infraction would be increased to a charge in which incarceration becomes a possibility.