R. v. Thibault

R. v. Thibault

The officer legitimately recalibrated and cleared the radar display to verify accuracy after the accused denied the speed; the accused's request to view the transient reading was not made in a timely manner and he had sufficient notice of the reason for detention; there was no negligence or abuse of process in deleting the display, the radar reading of 144 km/h was reliable and proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore no Charter remedy was warranted and the accused is guilty.

Citation
2003 NSPC 36
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Eric Thibault
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Traffic (speeding) / Decision (finding of Guilt)
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of speeding contrary to Motor Vehicle Act s.106(2).
Legal Topics
Speeding, Radar Evidence, Charter Ss.7 and 11(d), Charter S.10(a), Disclosure, Calibration of Equipment, Detention
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Rights Traffic Law Evidence Speeding Radar Evidence Charter Ss.7 and 11(d) Charter S.10(a) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Eric Thibault

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Traffic (speeding) / Decision (finding of Guilt)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deletion of the radar display breached ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the officer failed to disclose relevant, transient evidence and thereby impeded the defence
  3. 3 Whether s.10(a) Charter right to be informed of reasons for detention was breached by the officer's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The officer legitimately recalibrated and cleared the radar display to verify accuracy after the accused denied the speed; the accused's request to view the transient reading was not made in a timely manner and he had sufficient notice of the reason for detention; there was no negligence or abuse of process in deleting the display, the radar reading of 144 km/h was reliable and proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore no Charter remedy was warranted and the accused is guilty.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of speeding contrary to Motor Vehicle Act s.106(2).

Orders

  • Conviction entered for speeding (radar reading 144 km/h in a 100 km/h zone)
  • Charter application dismissed; no remedy awarded