Kustom Signals Falcon HR, Руководство оператора

Страница: 64 / 97

SECTION 10 - CASE LAW
10.6
R. v. O’Reilly
(Alta. Dist. Crt.) 1979
Where Crown failed to adduce evidence that the radar
set was capable of accurately measuring the speeds and
that the tests were approved tests, which evidence
would have been given by the officer who testified,
then appeal must be allowed and conviction set aside.
NOTE: Speeding is an offence of absolute liability.
This means that MENS REA (a guilty mind) is not an
element that must be proven. Guilt follows proof of the
ACTUS REUS (proscribed act).
Because speeding is an absolute liability offence, a
defence argument that, owing to a defective
speedometer the accused honestly believed that he or
she was not exceeding the speed limit, would not be
successful.
R. v. Lounsbury
(1993) Manitoba Court of the Queen’s Bench
The accused was charged for speeding. The RADAR
operator testified at trial that it was his usual practice to
test the unit both before and after issuing an offence
notice, but he had no independent recollection of
performing the tests in this case. He made a note in his
notebook that he had performed a test or tests, but did
not note the time of the test. The accused was
convicted and appealed. The appeal was allowed.
Evidence as to the operator’s usual practice did not
constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the
RADAR device was operation in this case. All that
could be safely inferred from the RADAR operators
testimony and notes was that he tested the RADAR
device and found it to be in good working order at some
point or points during the relevant shift. As a result, the
appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.