|
Cop didn't show... But no Dismissal!!
Don't think for a minute that you're gonna' walk away scott free if the cop doesn't show.
After the Crown was unsuccessful in trying to get me to plead down to a lesser charge, I mentioned to him that I noticed his witness (officer) wasn't in court. Of course he ceased his attempts to "swindle" me, and we went back to court before the JP. When the judge called the case, the crown stated that he had just received a phone call from the cop, and that he had been called to an on-duty emergency. He asked for a continuance... I asked for a dismissal (as I was prepared for trial right there and then). I was overruled and the JP allowed the continuance, so the trial was rescheduled for a later date. That's the first I've heard of this happening! Personally, I see this as courtroom misconduct. I am too busy with work to be mucking around with these hearings. Should I request the officers notes for the time of this apparent emergency?? Would it do me any good at the next appearance? BTW... it wasn't a trial date that was set next. It was a "preliminary hearing". It was explained to me that this is an informal meeting of the parties, with a JP who will not be hearing the actual trial. Is this a trick to get me to cough-up my defence strategy?? I'm suspicious. Everyone at the courthouse is being boligerant with me. It's clear that I am assumed guilty, and should just accept there "generous" (cough) offer. Is this typical?? (I'm not caving!!!) Argo |
dont do things that cause u to get a ticket......
|
Originally Posted by Argo
Don't think for a minute that you're gonna' walk away scott free if the cop doesn't show.
After the Crown was unsuccessful in trying to get me to plead down to a lesser charge, I mentioned to him that I noticed his witness (officer) wasn't in court. Of course he ceased his attempts to "swindle" me, and we went back to court before the JP. When the judge called the case, the crown stated that he had just received a phone call from the cop, and that he had been called to an on-duty emergency. He asked for a continuance... I asked for a dismissal (as I was prepared for trial right there and then). I was overruled and the JP allowed the continuance, so the trial was rescheduled for a later date. That's the first I've heard of this happening! Personally, I see this as courtroom misconduct. I am too busy with work to be mucking around with these hearings. Should I request the officers notes for the time of this apparent emergency?? Would it do me any good at the next appearance? BTW... it wasn't a trial date that was set next. It was a "preliminary hearing". It was explained to me that this is an informal meeting of the parties, with a JP who will not be hearing the actual trial. Is this a trick to get me to cough-up my defence strategy?? I'm suspicious. Everyone at the courthouse is being boligerant with me. It's clear that I am assumed guilty, and should just accept there "generous" (cough) offer. Is this typical?? (I'm not caving!!!) Argo Id get all the disclosure from you ticket and see what you can do. Im not sure if they still have the precedent of speady trials when it comes to traffic offences. Ive heard they no longer do that... but im not a professional on the matter as i too have lost in court... Regardless, good luck
Originally Posted by semendemon
dont do things that cause u to get a ticket......
|
I found this in the Provincial Offences Act. I really hope it applys to me (failing to stop for stop-sign... mistaken facts on officers part mr. semen dude), as I will be into the 7th month before this actually ends up going to trial.
PART V GENERAL PROVISIONS Limitation 76. (1) A proceeding shall not be commenced after the expiration of any limitation period prescribed by or under any Act for the offence or, where no limitation period is prescribed, after six months after the date on which the offence was, or is alleged to have been, committed. Extension (2) A limitation period may be extended by a justice with the consent of the defendant. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 76. |
That part applies to the time limit in which charges must be laid following an offence, and not the time between time of getting a ticket and time of trial.
Your "proceedings" have already commenced, starting the moment the cop issued you your personal invitation to the party. |
Originally Posted by gldwngr
That part applies to the time limit in which charges must be laid following an offence, and not the time between time of getting a ticket and time of trial.
Your "proceedings" have already commenced, starting the moment the cop issued you your personal invitation to the party. |
Hmm. It appears that the officer has to issue the citation to the defendant within 30 days of the alledged offence, but doesn't have to file with the court until 6 months later.
PART I COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS BY CERTIFICATE OF OFFENCE Certificate of offence and offence notice 3. (1) In addition to the procedure set out in Part III for commencing a proceeding by laying an information, a proceeding in respect of an offence may be commenced by filing a certificate of offence alleging the offence in the office of the court. Service (3) The offence notice or summons shall be served personally upon the person charged within thirty days after the alleged offence occurred. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 3 (1-3). Is there NO statute of limitations then?? |
You were not issued a part III summons. You were issued a part I for your offence. Part I certificates must be filed within 7 days of the date of offence. If the 7th day falls on a holiday or weekend then it is allowed to go to the next business day.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands