Kustom Signals Falcon HR, Руководство оператора

Страница: 60 / 97

SECTION 10 - CASE LAW
10.2
2. tested and accurately measured the speed of the
appellant’s vehicle
3. evidence prima facie notwithstanding that the
officer did not have a detailed knowledge of the
working of the radar set.
R. v. Joudrey (1992) Nova Scotia Prov. Court
The accused was charged with speeding contrary to s.
106(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The night of the
alleged offence was foggy and drizzly. The accused
insisted that he was not driving over the speed limit and
challenged the accuracy of the RADAR readings. His
lawyer cross-examined the RADAR operator and, in
doing so, referred to a textbook, “the Law of Speeding
and RADAR”, and specifically to passages stating that
certain atmospheric or environmental conditions could
give spurious readings. The court did take judicial
notice of the passages in the textbook and the accused
was acquitted.
Griffin v. the Queen (N.S. Cnty. Crt.) 1980
Officer testified the appellant traveled at 107 kilometres
in a zone marked for a maximum of 80 kilometres. He
neither described the speed in terms of “kilometres per
hour”, nor did he describe the purpose or functioning of
the radar gun. HELD: Judicial notice could be taken of
the functioning of the radar gun. While the description
of the speed was imprecise, the intended meaning was
clear.