Kustom Signals Falcon HR, Руководство оператора

Страница: 62 / 97

SECTION 10 - CASE LAW
10.4
R. v. Windrem (May 27, 1986, Brampton Prov. Off.
Appt. Ct.)
Defence agents/counsel use this case to support their
argument that there must be evidence before the Court
that the tests conducted on the radar device were in
accordance with the accepted manufacturer’s technique.
It is apparent from the Judgment that the appeal was
allowed as the Justice of the Peace at trial misdirected
himself on the evidence. The J.P. in his reasons for
judgement found that the officer had checked the radar
before and after use by the accepted manufacturer’s
technique. That evidence was not before the J.P. at
trial.
R. v. Furlong (P.O.A.) 1985
Defence agents/counsel use this case to support their
argument that the officer must state in evidence “ I
tested the radar..."” It is apparent from the Judgement
on appeal, that the appeal was allowed due to the fact
that the J.P. at trial misdirected himself on the evidence
before him. The J.P. found as a fact that the officer was
the person that did the testing, because there was no one
else in the police car. There was no such evidence
before the J.P. at trial.