Got caught going 166 km/h on highway. Need help!

[Metastable]

The guy that wrote you the ticket wasn't the guy that pulled you over? WTF?

Your chances of beating this in court just got a lot better.

Listen to what Rob said. WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so you don't forget how it happened. You start to forget little details that can be very important later on. Cops do make up BS speeds, it happened to me, although thankfully in my case it wasn't a stunting charge. BTW - I KNOW in my case the cop was making stuff up, because the next guy he gave a ticket to, he also picked a random number from mid air.

 

[turbodish]

If the charge is plead down to simple speeding then simple speeding, and not stunting, was the appropriate charge.

Ok, if you insist on that line of reasoning, Homolka was originally facing charges of first and second degree murder, as well as a number of other charges including kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and sex crimes charges. Ultimately she was convicted of manslaughter and given an extremely lenient sentence as a result of a plea bargain.

By your rational, only the manslaughter charge would have been the appropriate one to charge her with, and not the more serious charges.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Ok, if you insist on that line of reasoning, Homolka was originally facing charges of first and second degree murder, as well as a number of other charges including kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and sex crimes charges. Ultimately she was convicted of manslaughter as a result of a plea bargain.

By your rational, only the manslaughter charge would have been the appropriate one to charge her with, and not the more serious charges.

So now we're equating traffic offences with Criminal Code offences? Fine. Then by your reasoning she'd have been sentenced to 10 years, before trial.

 

[turbodish]

So now we're equating traffic offences with Criminal Code offences? Fine. Then by your reasoning she'd have been sentenced to 10 years, before trial.

She was held in custody prior to trial, so in a sense yes, she was serving a penalty already even in absence of a conviction.

In any case, the example wasn't intended to equate comparative severity of the respective HTA and CC offences. It was used to illustrate that conviction for a lesser offence than that of the original charge laid does not indicate than an inappropriate charge was laid at the outset.

There are several offences for which both greater and lesser charges are available that would each fit a given set of facts, but there is nothing that requires "the least severe charge possible" to be laid. If such were the case, nobody would ever even be charged with serious speeding charges at all - after all, that piddly 2-point disobey legal sign would also cover that event, wouldn't it?

 

[Zangief]

The guy that wrote you the ticket wasn't the guy that pulled you over? WTF?

Your chances of beating this in court just got a lot better.

Listen to what Rob said. WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so you don't forget how it happened. You start to forget little details that can be very important later on. Cops do make up BS speeds, it happened to me, although thankfully in my case it wasn't a stunting charge. BTW - I KNOW in my case the cop was making stuff up, because the next guy he gave a ticket to, he also picked a random number from mid air.

I already did that last night when everything was very fresh. Thanks for the advice.
Yea, the guy who wrote my ticket didn't actually pull me over and in fact he told me that everything he wrote down was just told to him by the officer who originally pulled me over. The original cop also said that my liscense wouldn't be suspended and that the biggest fine would be the tow charge, then when asked the other guy he said my liscense would be suspended and I was looking at a 2000 fine in court.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

She was held in custody prior to trial, so in a sense yes, she was serving a penalty already even in absence of a conviction.

In any case, the example wasn't intended to equate comparative severity of the respective HTA and CC offences. It was used to illustrate that conviction for a lesser offence than that of the original charge laid does not indicate than an inappropriate charge was laid at the outset.

There are several offences for which both greater and lesser charges are available that would each fit a given set of facts, but there is nothing that requires "the least severe charge possible" to be laid. If such were the case, nobody would ever even be charged with serious speeding charges at all - after all, that piddly 2-point disobey legal sign would also cover that event, wouldn't it?

Indeed, and people who are not seen as being a great potential danger to the public, and are capable of providing surety, are generally back on the streets immediately after their initial hearing. Perhaps you would have been better served to not immediately resort to patent hyperbole?

When it comes to stunting you are either guilty of not guilty. When it's speeding you are either guilty, guilty of a lesser speed, or not guilty. The choice must be made, at time of trial, whether The Crown will pursue the charge behind door A or door B.

It's time that justice was brought back to the justice system and up front penalties, for charges against people who do not present a continuing danger to the public, were abolished.

 

[Toxic]

Heyy, my buddy was in your shoes 6 months ago. He hired a lawyer and he proved that the cops math had an error in it so the crown threw it out of court.

I'll get you his # in a lil bit

 

[turbodish]

Indeed, and people who are not seen as being a great potential danger to the public, and are capable of providing surety, are generally back on the streets immediately after their initial hearing. Perhaps you would have been better served to not immediately resort to patent hyperbole?

Well, one can also say that it's hyperbole to suggest that an inappropriate charge was laid at the outset merely because a Crown agrees to a defence request to plead guilty to a lesser charge, thus allowing the accused to avoid the harsher penalties of the more serious charge.

When it comes to stunting you are either guilty of not guilty. When it's speeding you are either guilty, guilty of a lesser speed, or not guilty. The choice must be made, at time of trial, whether The Crown will pursue the charge behind door A or door B.

Once again, if the facts of the event support the more serious charge, then that is a perfectly appropriate charge to begin proceedings with, no matter what deals are finally arranged between Crown and defence later on in the process. This is a fundamental part of our justice system.

It's time that justice was brought back to the justice system and up front penalties, for charges against people who do not present a continuing danger to the public, were abolished.

Some would say that plea bargains are a perversion of justice and should be abolished. If such were the case, I can think of a few thousand drivers who would be much worse off than they are now, and I'm not referring to just the HTA172 ones.

 

[Zangief]

Heyy, my buddy was in your shoes 6 months ago. He hired a lawyer and he proved that the cops math had an error in it so the crown threw it out of court.

I'll get you his # in a lil bit

That would be awesome man! Much appreciated.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Well, one can also say that it's hyperbole to suggest that an inappropriate charge was laid at the outset merely because a Crown agrees to a defence request to plead guilty to a lesser charge, thus allowing the accused to avoid the harsher penalties of the more serious charge.

It's hardly hyperbole if the majority of cases have resulted in either a not guilty verdict, or a lesser charge. That tends to indicate over-charging, which is a practise that I abhor. It also, to my mind at least, it indicates an unnecessary or poorly-framed law.

Once again, if the facts of the event support the more serious charge, then that is a perfectly appropriate charge to begin proceedings with, no matter what deals are finally arranged between Crown and defence later on in the process. This is a fundamental part of our justice system.

As "innocent until proved guilty", is also a fundamental part of our justice system. That seems to have been permitted to go by the wayside.

Some would say that plea bargains are a perversion of justice and should be abolished. If such were the case, I can think of a few thousand drivers who would be much worse off than they are now, and I'm not referring to just the HTA172 ones.

I would think that there would be a rather vast number of people who have been charged, who would be quite happy, as the justice system would grind to a halt. Chapter 11(b) would get quite the workout.

 

[turbodish]

Quick question, if I plead not guilty (which I'm planning to) what will happen to insurance as I'm awaiting trial? Am I innocent until proven guilty or are my insurance rates increasing right now as we speak?

And while we're doing the math, pleading guilty to a 49-over will cost you about $360 in total fines and victim surcharges, plus 4 demerit points, plus it represents a minor traffic ticket that will probably have no effect or at best only a most minimal impact on your insurance rates. If you can get that deal, that's really your best risk-free way to cut your losses.

Pleading not guilty to the stunting charge will cost you legal fees which can be several times the cost of just the fine for a 49-over speeding conviction. That's just the up-front charge that you will pay, win or lose at trial. You will have to also supply the time and effort associated with having to defend a serious traffic charge

If you lose and are convicted, you're also looking at some serious additional costs over and above your legal costs, starting with a $2,000 fine for first offence (or more if the JP is in a bad mood), plus a minimum 50% hit to your insurance for the next several years. You also risk an additional license suspension on conviction. That, and you now have a stunting conviction on your driving record which means the next time you're caught stunting, the penalties go up, way up, including possible jail time and a ten year license suspension.

Like I said, a stunting charge based on excess speeding is an easy one for the Crown to win. You are rolling the dice if you choose to go to trial. Unlike some city cops, OPP cops tend to be very good at making it to their trials, so don't be too surprised to see both cops involved show up for your trial if you decide to roll the dice at a trial.

 

[turbodish]

It's hardly hyperbole if the majority of cases have resulted in either a not guilty verdict, or a lesser charge. That tends to indicate over-charging, which is a practise that I abhor. It also, to my mind at least, it indicates an unnecessary or poorly-framed law.

The majority of cases have resulted in conviction, whether by trial or by guilty plea. Whether you want to call it "over-charging" or not isn't relevant so long as the initial charges fit the facts of the act.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The majority of cases have resulted in conviction, whether by trial or by guilty plea. Whether you want to call it "over-charging" or not isn't relevant so long as the initial charges fit the facts of the act.

And so we go 'round again, because the majority of charges have not resulted in a conviction on the stunting charge, meaning that the majority of people were needlessly deprived of their right to a trial, before punishment.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I already did that last night when everything was very fresh. Thanks for the advice.
Yea, the guy who wrote my ticket didn't actually pull me over and in fact he told me that everything he wrote down was just told to him by the officer who originally pulled me over. The original cop also said that my liscense wouldn't be suspended and that the biggest fine would be the tow charge, then when asked the other guy he said my liscense would be suspended and I was looking at a 2000 fine in court.

The potential is far worse, than a simple $2000.00 fine. That is, in fact, the most likely result though. The maximum potential penalties for a first offence are license suspension for up to 2 years, a fine up to $10,000.00, and 6 months in jail. For this reason I would never recommend that a layman attempt to defend himself, against a charge under HTA 172; the potential penalties are simply too high and roughly equivalent with many Criminal Code offences. Even should you wish to ultimately plead guilty, to the offence, it would be best to have the representation of a skilled and experienced negotiator.

 

[turbodish]

And so we go 'round again, because the majority of charges have not resulted in a conviction on the stunting charge, meaning that the majority of people were needlessly deprived of their right to a trial, before punishment.

Everyone was given their right to trial. Many chose to avoid it by pleading down. Their choice entirely and not one that the system "forced" on them.

Pre-trial repercussions and whether they are "right" or not are a different matter entirely, and have nothing to do with any issue of supposed overcharging or laying "inappropriate" charges. That issue is one for a higher court to decide, but so far the higher courts have seen no Constitutional impediment barring such pretrial administrative actions for other driving offences, and I doubt that they will rule differently if an HTA172-specific challenge is ever brought before them.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Everyone was given their right to trial. Many chose to avoid it by pleading down. Their choice entirely and not one that the system "forced" on them.

Pre-trial repercussions and whether they are "right" or not are a different matter entirely, and have nothing to do with any issue of supposed overcharging or laying "inappropriate" charges. That issue is one for a higher court to decide, but so far the higher courts have seen no Constitutional impediment barring such pretrial administrative actions for other driving offences, and I doubt that they will rule differently if an HTA172-specific challenge is ever brought before them.

There have already been rulings, based on Constitutional challenge, that substantially altered the standards pertaining to a conviction under HTA 172, for speed. My hope is that they will continue, until this travesty of a law is withdrawn from the books.

 

[turbodish]

There have already been rulings, based on Constitutional challenge, that substantially altered the standards pertaining to a conviction under HTA 172, for speed. My hope is that they will continue, until this travesty of a law is withdrawn from the books.

What standards were altered? The only thing that came out of those appeals was affirmation that HTA172 was a strict liability offence that offered the potential to offer a due diligence defence. Neither HTA172 itself, nor the penalties associated with it either pre- or post-conviction, were affected in the least by that affirmation.

There are similar and much longer-standing "travesties on the books" for impaired driving and driving while disqualified, including automatic no-appeal vehicle impounds. These have stood the test of the highest courts in Canada. The rulings in those cases only serve to further buttress the legality and constitutionality of HTA172 and its various sanctions.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

What standards were altered? The onlt thing that came out of those appeals was affirmation that HTA172 was a strict liability offence that offered the potential to offer a due diligence defence. Neither HTA172 itself, nor the penalties associated with it either pre- or post-conviction, were affected in the least by that affirmation.

That was a fundamental change, to the way that the law is handled in court. Prior to that simply being said to have travelled in excess of 50 Kmh over the limit, by an officer, was enough for a conviction that had long lasting consequences to a person's life. Now, at least, a defence of due diligence exists. That's a HUGE difference. It's still not enough, though.

There are similar and much longer-standing "travesties on the books" for impaired driving and driving while disqualified, including automatic no-appeal vehicle impounds. These have stood the test of the highest courts in Canada. The rulings in those cases only serve to further buttress the legality and constitutionality of HTA172 and its various sanctions.

And again, we've gone around the block on this more times than I care to count. Someone who is driving while impaired is still impaired, after they have been stopped by police. Someone who is driving, while under ban, has presumably committed another offence that led to that suspension, while simultaneously showing disdain for the legal process. In such cases, the benefit to society can be shown to clearly outweigh the rights of the individual and, therefore, the impoundments are seen as falling outside of Constitutional protection.

Someone who was speeding is no longer speeding, by definition, after having been stopped by police.

 

[Baggsy]

I would imagine that an improper charge would be dropped by the DA rather than plea-bargained. That seems to be what happens today.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

I would imagine that an improper charge would be dropped by the DA rather than plea-bargained. That seems to be what happens today.

But the accused is still out over a G before he sees a day in court. It's immediate and the accused is being judged by the police constable.