R. v. Fritz

R. v. Fritz

The judicial justice materially erred by failing to complete the W.(D.) analysis—specifically by stating he did not believe the accused without addressing whether the accused's evidence nonetheless raised a reasonable doubt—thereby vitiating the conviction; because the record nonetheless contains evidence capable of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 BCSC 484
Parties
Respondent (crown): Regina; Appellant (accused): Jaret Fritz
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (speeding Under Motor Vehicle Act S.146(1)) / Appeal Heard; Judgment Delivered; Remitted for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
W.(d.) Analysis, Reasonable Doubt, Speeding Offence, Disclosure, Laser Calibration, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Traffic Law Evidence Law W.(d.) Analysis Reasonable Doubt Speeding Offence Disclosure Laser Calibration +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent (crown)

Jaret Fritz

Appellant (accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (speeding Under Motor Vehicle Act S.146(1)) / Appeal Heard; Judgment Delivered; Remitted for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Failure to grant remedy for prejudicial/misleading Crown disclosure
  2. 2 No calibration evidence for laser unit yet finding it worked properly
  3. 3 Finding officer can visually estimate speed ±10 km/h without evidentiary basis

Ratio Decidendi

The judicial justice materially erred by failing to complete the W.(D.) analysis—specifically by stating he did not believe the accused without addressing whether the accused's evidence nonetheless raised a reasonable doubt—thereby vitiating the conviction; because the record nonetheless contains evidence capable of supporting conviction, the appropriate remedy is to allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and order a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and conviction set aside.
  • Matter returned to the Provincial Court for a new trial.