http://www.newstalk770.com/News/Loca...spx?ID=1912022
Supposably Alberta Justice is contemplating getting rid of traffic court and in its place to have Traffic Tribunals where you appeal your ticket in writing, much like parking tickets now.
http://www.newstalk770.com/News/Loca...spx?ID=1912022
Supposably Alberta Justice is contemplating getting rid of traffic court and in its place to have Traffic Tribunals where you appeal your ticket in writing, much like parking tickets now.
huh.... so just sending them an email? i might actually do that if it was that easy
A traffic court agent in Alberta is sounding the alarm over proposed changes by the provincial justice department. Charlie Pester, with POINTTS - a company that fights traffic tickets on behalf of Albertans - tells the Rutherford Show on News Talk 770 that, under the proposal, tickets would come with two fines, a low amount if you plead guilty, but a higher fine if you fight the ticket and lose. He also says you would have to fight the ticket in writing to a tribunal-type board and that the police officer who charged you would not have to be questioned or provide any evidence.
Well the cheaper payment bit is pretty much as it is now. That incentive to plead guilty has always existed.
As for the second bit. It would violate section 11(d) of the charter of rights and freedoms:
A letter without public appearance to the accused would violate the charter. Not happening.Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
Last edited by frizzlefry; 03-14-2013 at 09:44 PM.
...and they would screw you over because it was that much easier This idea would not benefit drivers trust me.Originally posted by ercchry
huh.... so just sending them an email? i might actually do that if it was that easy
it doesnt benefit me currently either. i havent fought a ticket since i was a student... and my time was worthless
If anyone has spent time in traffic court, they would know that most of the tickets get resolved before the matter makes it in front of the JP. The JP is usually left deciding how much time to give the offendor to pay.
The whole "innocent until proven guilty" doesent fly with traffic tickets as you were observed by a sworn police officer, using approved equipment, to note you breaking the law.
Sometimes members make mistakes and thats where court comes in.
Its the same if a bylaw officer catches you urinating in public and writes you up. Youre not innocent if you were caught doing it.
That don't seem to mean shit to that red headed fucking whore in Edmonton.Originally posted by frizzlefry
A traffic court agent in Alberta is sounding the alarm over proposed changes by the provincial justice department. Charlie Pester, with POINTTS - a company that fights traffic tickets on behalf of Albertans - tells the Rutherford Show on News Talk 770 that, under the proposal, tickets would come with two fines, a low amount if you plead guilty, but a higher fine if you fight the ticket and lose. He also says you would have to fight the ticket in writing to a tribunal-type board and that the police officer who charged you would not have to be questioned or provide any evidence.
Well the cheaper payment bit is pretty much as it is now. That incentive to plead guilty has always existed.
As for the second bit. It would violate section 11(d) of the charter of rights and freedoms:
A letter without public appearance to the accused would violate the charter. Not happening.
oh well there goes any chance of getting the ticket thrown out when officer doesn't show. Plus just like parking tickets it will probably be alot harder to reduce as I've never heard anyone able to reduce a parking ticket.
Yes it'll save a ton of money for the system but this would be bad news for anyone who gets a ticket. Yea you don't have to show up to court to reduce/fight it but I bet you these "tribunal trials" will be much less forgiving than judges.
...What? You say sometimes members make mistakes. But yeah, they are sworn and you are not innocent if they have caught you. But what if they were mistaken when they caught you?Originally posted by revelations
If anyone has spent time in traffic court, they would know that most of the tickets get resolved before the matter makes it in front of the JP. The JP is usually left deciding how much time to give the offendor to pay.
The whole "innocent until proven guilty" doesent fly with traffic tickets as you were observed by a sworn police officer, using approved equipment, to note you breaking the law.
Sometimes members make mistakes and thats where court comes in.
Its the same if a bylaw officer catches you urinating in public and writes you up. Youre not innocent if you were caught doing it.
"Because I am a cop and I said so" is not 100% proof until a judge determines it is after cross examination.
Yes, because their judgements would not be under public scrutiny. Hence the right to a public trial under the charter.Originally posted by black13
Yea you don't have to show up to court to reduce/fight it but I bet you these "tribunal trials" will be much less forgiving than judges.
The closest i ever got to reducing a parking ticket was when i passed the 10 days for the early payment fee, and after an entire morning i managed to get it back to the fee prior to the 10 days.Originally posted by black13
oh well there goes any chance of getting the ticket thrown out when officer doesn't show. Plus just like parking tickets it will probably be alot harder to reduce as I've never heard anyone able to reduce a parking ticket.
Yes it'll save a ton of money for the system but this would be bad news for anyone who gets a ticket. Yea you don't have to show up to court to reduce/fight it but I bet you these "tribunal trials" will be much less forgiving than judges.
No surprise that Charlie Pester is against this: it would eliminate the fuckjob-fee he gets to charge victims nowadays for having lunch with the prosecutor and fucking up a bunch of paperwork.
Section 7 of the Charter. Right to make full answer and defense.
The rights guaranteed under this section can't be upheld in a letter. And the best part, it has nothing to do with presumption of nonsense.
Last edited by FraserB; 03-14-2013 at 10:23 PM.
See Crank. See Crank Walk. Walk Crank Walk.
This whole thing is lame. Sure, people can still call on witnesses from cross examination as per POPA, if they choose, but who the hell is going to know that if they aren't up to snuff on that kind of thing? This isn't exactly fair justice, if you ask me.
The Charter arguments being brought up are not technically correct, but you guys are right in that evidence sworn by affidavit (as per the front of the ticket) is accepted as fact by the Crown and adjudicator as per those same laws unless challenged by the accused, and that is why these tickets can currently be convicted in absence without the witness actually being present. However, the only way they can possibly get away with this is to inform people they have the right to actually take these to trial and cross examine in order to have full answer and defence, otherwise it's a sham and it's definitely not proper administration of justice.
I'm not on board with this, no way.
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
...further to this...so say a simple ticket is not up to a judge but an ambigous tribunal. But say that charge was used to unlawfully search you or charge you with obstruction of peace officer if you resisted? A tribunal could have found you guily of jaywalking after a cursory read of your email thus justifying police actions afterwards. What if a judge could have (upon hearing testimoney and evidence) ruled that your rights were violated during the initial minor infraction and that, because the police did not properly inform you that you were charged with jaywalking at the time, all actions/charges afterwards were a violation of your rights and subsequently tosses them?Originally posted by frizzlefry
...What? You say sometimes members make mistakes. But yeah, they are sworn and you are not innocent if they have caught you. But what if they were mistaken when they caught you?
"Because I am a cop and I said so" is not 100% proof until a judge determines it is after cross examination.
Case Law
Any charge or violation that can constitute an execution of police duty must be viewed and tried by a judge because a lawful execution of that duty can lead to other more serious investigation/charges. Fruit of the poison tree type stuff. In the case I posted, if some "tribunal" ruled that the jaywalking offence was legally executed than this guy would have been guilty of obstruction and possession of a firearm. But a real judge tossed everything after cross examination of the officers because the jaywalking charge was unlawful and therefor they did not have the right to search him nor could he have obstructed them because they did not properly inform him they were executing the duty of charging him with jaywalking. Which was a BS charge to begin with.
This guy was "known" to police and had an illegal gun. If a judge would protect his rights based on an improper minor ticket offence than surely the person who was driving 15 over the speed limit is afforded the same right to judicial attention no?
Any police execution of duty that can give officers further rights to search/detain/investigate you must be open to public judicial review. And has to be, according to the charter.
Good luck to those that are ESL or ETL.
Too loud for Aspen
Totally against this. Sounds like another cash grab and much harder to fight tickets. It's way easier to argue why you were innocent via speech then trying to write down the whole situation down, including all the small little details which may affect your judgement versus writing them up in a letter and hoping that the tribunal understands the situation correctly. There are tons of people that can't even write a coherent sentence, do you think a tribunal will take somebody who writes like shit seriously? Insta-guilty I bet. Not being able to cross-examine the cop is fucked up too, are you supposed to send in a letter for every question you want to ask them? Cops aren't always 100% correct, they make mistakes. Making the process to fight tickets even harder and taking away the chance to cross-examine the cop who accused you is not fair justice. The tribunal can basically say the cop said you were going over speed limit, guilty.
I know what you're trying to say here, but I'm not sure you are understanding the differences between that case (that isnt case law, BTW) and what is being discussed here. I will address that tomorrow when I have more time, but suffice it to say, those types of cases bear no relevance to this at all.Originally posted by frizzlefry
...further to this...so say a simple ticket is not up to a judge but an ambigous tribunal. But say that charge was used to unlawfully search you or charge you with obstruction of peace officer if you resisted? A tribunal could have found you guily of jaywalking after a cursory read of your email thus justifying police actions afterwards. What if a judge could have (upon hearing testimoney and evidence) ruled that your rights were violated during the initial minor infraction and that, because the police did not properly inform you that you were charged with jaywalking at the time, all actions/charges afterwards were a violation of your rights and subsequently tosses them?
Case Law
Any charge or violation that can constitute an execution of police duty must be viewed and tried by a judge because a lawful execution of that duty can lead to other more serious investigation/charges. Fruit of the poison tree type stuff. In the case I posted, if some "tribunal" ruled that the jaywalking offence was legally executed than this guy would have been guilty of obstruction and possession of a firearm. But a real judge tossed everything after cross examination of the officers because the jaywalking charge was unlawful and therefor they did not have the right to search him nor could he have obstructed them because they did not properly inform him they were executing the duty of charging him with jaywalking. Which was a BS charge to begin with.
This guy was "known" to police and had an illegal gun. If a judge would protect his rights based on an improper minor ticket offence than surely the person who was driving 15 over the speed limit is afforded the same right to judicial attention no?
Any police execution of duty that can give officers further rights to search/detain/investigate you must be open to public judicial review. And has to be, according to the charter.
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
Well let's say precedent then. Maybe just a real judge deciding that a simple ticket was unjust which led to further charges being tossed. Keep it simple.Originally posted by phil98z24
I know what you're trying to say here, but I'm not sure you are understanding the differences between that case (that isnt case law, BTW) and what is being discussed here. I will address that tomorrow when I have more time, but suffice it to say, those types of cases bear no relevance to this at all.
The charter outlines what we are entitled to as Canadian citizens. Clearly. Full stop.
There are a number of cases in Canlii and in provincial court records of traffic tickets getting tossed due to cross examination of the officer. Denying that right to citizens is unjust. It's a very simple argument in my mind and should not require much more discussion.
Although I think my previous point was also valid. Would be nice if a judge could render a verdict on that in person rather than an anonymous person from whom I cannot request full disclosure or cross examine. Or provide counter arguments against. In front of a judge.
Now if the point of this would be to save money at the expense of a full and open trial I assure you it would fail. People will simply appeal their verdicts if they were so inclined and willing to see a judge in the first place. Unfair trial would be the immediate grounds I could see being an easy reason for appeal.
What's next? No appeal hearing because its annoying and a judge would have to be there and oh my.... Just shut up puny citizen, pay your ticket and get lost?
Last edited by frizzlefry; 03-15-2013 at 01:30 AM.
...
Last edited by Sugarphreak; 07-16-2019 at 02:01 PM.