Kustom Signals Falcon HR, Руководство оператора

Страница: 61 / 97

SECTION 10 - CASE LAW
10.3
R. v. Longmire (1993) Nova Scotia Supreme Court
(Appeal Div.)
The appellant’s conviction was affirmed on appeal.
The appellant appealed further, arguing that the trial
Judge erred in his interpretation and application of s.
88(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act and that the Crowns
refusal to provide him with a copy of the RADAR
operation manual violated his rights under ss. 7 and
11(d) of the Charter, preventing him from making full
answer to the charge. Defence council indicated that his
reason for asking for the manual was “so that the
defence can make itself familiar with the particular
operation of this RADAR unit and in order that we can
intelligently cross-examine the Crown with regards to
how he operated the RADAR on that day.” He also
wished to have the manual to review sources of
interference that may make the unit susceptible to
inaccuracies. In addition, the testing procedure was
sought for review. The Crown, in response to the
preliminary motion, indicated that it would not provide
a copy of the manual, but would consent to an
adjournment so the defence could hire an expert in the
operation of the RADAR machine. The trial Judge
declined to order a stay, as defence requested, but did
grant n adjournment so that defence counsel might
obtain the manual from another source. Defence
counsel did not pursue the matter of disclosure on the
adjourned date, nor did they cross-examine the officer
with respect to the operation of the RADAR.The
appellant did not lay a rational basis or factual
foundation for his claim for disclosure. In an absence
of an air of reality to the request for production, there
was no evidence of a breach of the Charter. The appeal
was dismissed.