Careless Driving/ No insurance ticket- HELP!

[Brian P]

interesting discussion...
there is a duty to disclose all evidence to the defendant

this was publicized in the Commission into the wrongful prosecution of Guy Paul Morin
of course it was DNA evidence that acquitted him
but the report was very critical of Durham Police for squashing evidence that would have benefited the defendant

But, as has already been stated, video that may or may not exist on a cell phone is not "evidence" unless it is actually entered as such in court.

In the situation above, evidence that comes to light after the trial has to be brought in following proper procedures in the courtroom.

If the original poster wanted to make use of what may or may not have been on that video then it should have been brought into evidence way back before the first trial. It should have been requested, and the process should have been followed BACK THEN. Now, as mentioned, there are plenty of reasons why that video may not exist, or its existence can be legitimately denied, or could be declared inadmissible, or who knows what.

Besides, there is a fair chance that even if that video did turn up, what it shows might not necessarily be in the original poster's interest. Unless it shows that the original poster was fully in compliance with all applicable laws including never exceeding the speed limit, it's probably not in the original poster's interest. If the original poster was fully in compliance with all applicable laws, there wouldn't have been motivation for the officer to pull the rider over in the first place. Yeah, sure, the cops can make random stops, they don't need probable cause, this is Canada, not USA. But such stops generally don't involve forcibly separating people from their vehicles. Just my opinion - We haven't heard the whole story here ...

 

[Rob MacLennan]

interesting discussion...
there is a duty to disclose all evidence to the defendant

this was publicized in the Commission into the wrongful prosecution of Guy Paul Morin
of course it was DNA evidence that acquitted him
but the report was very critical of Durham Police for squashing evidence that would have benefited the defendant

The Crown has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, or evidence upon which they intend to rely in order to prosecute. Nothing more.

 

[J_F]

okay...carry on

edit: but then again no
I'm right, but don't feel like an internet argument

The Crown must disclose all materials and information that is in its possession or control that is not clearly irrelevant, regardless of if the evidence is to be called at trial or is inculpatory or exculpatory


http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Crown_Duty_to_Disclose

 

[Brian P]

Video that may or may not have been on the officer's private cell phone might never be in the Crown's "possession or control" ... The Crown prosecutor wouldn't know of the existence of something on the officer's private cell phone ... unless it was pointed out to them ... and the time to point that out, was at the time of officially requesting disclosure a year ago, not now! Now they can just deny that any such thing ever existed and you'll never be able to prove otherwise.

 

[J_F]

The Crown has an obligation to obtain from an investigative agency any relevant information that it is aware of and must "take reasonable step to inquire about ...relevant information".[SUP][10][/SUP]
The duty to make disclosure creates a duty upon the crown to obtain the disclosure from the police and, likewise, the police have a corresponding duty to provide disclosure to the crown. [SUP][11][/SUP]
These obligations are jointly held by both Crown and police

 

[J_F]

in advance a possible rebuttal Rob
I really don't want to argue

and I'm not referring to the specifics of the video
more to the general discussion that began earlier
of the obligation to disclose

OP is obviously well beyond any discussions of disclosure
cheers man

 

[Brian P]

I think we all agree that the time to discuss video that may or may not have been on the officer's cell phone at some point in time was a year ago, not now.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

in advance a possible rebuttal Rob
I really don't want to argue

and I'm not referring to the specifics of the video
more to the general discussion that began earlier
of the obligation to disclose

OP is obviously well beyond any discussions of disclosure
cheers man

With respect to your previous comment about Guy Paul Moran the judgment stated that the police cannot withhold evidence from disclosure which may tend to support the accused's case (ie. exculpatory evidence). Yes, it also stated that the police cannot withhold such evidences either. If the evidence does not point to the accused's innocence or is evidence against the accused, upon which The Crown does not choose to rely upon at trial, then they have no duty to provide it. For example if they have 14 eye witnesses and a security video tape all stating that the accused performed a crime and they decide that they don't need the tape, because of the actual live witnesses, then they don't have to provide the defence with the tape.

 

[J_F]

at this point you're arguing with the Criminal Code, so carry on....I'm out

 

[boyoboy]

With respect to your previous comment about Guy Paul Moran the judgment stated that the police cannot withhold evidence from disclosure which may tend to support the accused's case (ie. exculpatory evidence). Yes, it also stated that the police cannot withhold such evidences either. If the evidence does not point to the accused's innocence or is evidence against the accused, upon which The Crown does not choose to rely upon at trial, then they have no duty to provide it. For example if they have 14 eye witnesses and a security video tape all stating that the accused performed a crime and they decide that they don't need the tape, because of the actual live witnesses, then they don't have to provide the defence with the tape.

if I remember this correctly, a neighbour reported hearing a girl screaming and kn

 

[nobbie48]

Life isn't baseball. You don't get three strikes every time at bat. Hedo, RM and others have given a tough love recap of what is likely to happen.

Even if it was baseball:

Strike 1, you did something to attract a cop.

Strike 2, you didn't have insurance.

Strike 3, you've been playing the system hoping for the ump to allow you a strike 4

OP says he's realized the error of his ways but doesn't seem to want to apply what he's learned to the case in hand. Trying to weasel out of the charges and avoiding the consequences of his actions isn't going to impress the court.

 

[PLau]

Strike 1, you did something to attract a cop.

I can't help but wonder what he did to attract the cop's attention for the cop to have enough time to whip out a cell phone and start recording - on top of that, physically removing OP off his bike...

One would think you would try to not attract attention when riding dirty.

Although it is a terrible idea to reveal what it is you did on a public forum, please feel free if you want to dig yourself into a deeper hole...

PS. Good luck with your case.

 

[ddusseld]

I'm assuming you are telling the truth about having a lawyer. All of these questions should be asked of said lawyer. You are paying a lawyer for precisely these reasons. If you feel your lawyer is not representing you properly get another lawyer. Ignore the legal advice in this thread. There are a lot of very smart, knowledgeable people trying to help you but I don't believe any of them are lawyers. They may be right, they may be wrong. This is the internet. Again, use your lawyer for legal advice.

What if i file a complaint against the officer with regards to assault? He grabbed me by my collar and started dragging my bike to tilt and cause a burn on my leg?

 

[hedo2002]

I'm assuming you are telling the truth about having a lawyer. All of these questions should be asked of said lawyer. You are paying a lawyer for precisely these reasons. If you feel your lawyer is not representing you properly get another lawyer. Ignore the legal advice in this thread. There are a lot of very smart, knowledgeable people trying to help you but I don't believe any of them are lawyers. They may be right, they may be wrong. This is the internet. Again, use your lawyer for legal advice.

I have given the OP the same advice about speaking to his lawyer. It doesn't sound like the lawyers representation is an issue, it seems more that the OP simply felt if he ignored the situation for a long enough period it would simply go away. which is like deciding not to go to your door when the SWAT team is outside, HIGHLY, unlikely they are just going to go away..lol.

Your right, I doubt anyone giving advice here is a lawyer. My advice is only based on several thousand hours spent in various courtrooms, (working not on the wrong side of the law)..lol.

My main advice to the OP was to get in touch with his lawyer, start taking this SERIOUSLY, go to court, and trying to use, what would quickly be seen as a retaliatory assault complaint at this stage in the game would be a poor option.

 

[fastar1]

My advice is to continue trying to duck, dive and squirm out of being responsible for anything in his life, that way it won't matter how long it takes for him to get out of jail, he'll still be a big baby at that point.

 

[backmarkerducati]

Any update OP?

Just wondering if the outcome was comfy shoes and a metro pass?

 

[GreyGhost]

He last logged in Jan 13. He didn't like the way this discussion was going.

 

[deptofagricultur]

I just read 8 pages, and when I get to the end there is no conclusion... So disappointing.

 

[J_F]

You will never get that time back
But the empty feeling will fade

 

[GreyGhost]

He still hasn't logged on. Anyone seen an S1000RR on Kijiji lately? His riding days may be over.