ns:r._v._hebert_no._1_1991_canlii_13821_ns_pc
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| ns:r._v._hebert_no._1_1991_canlii_13821_ns_pc [2026/08/29 23:54] – victorzhou | ns:r._v._hebert_no._1_1991_canlii_13821_ns_pc [2026/08/29 23:54] (current) – victorzhou | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| The Crown has failed to adduce technical evidence of the general trustworthiness of the process of speed detection by means of the Multanova radar camera and judicial notice cannot be taken of that fact at this time. That evidence of trustworthiness could be based on general experience as to the class of instrument with a knowledge that the mechanism of this instrument complies with the trustworthy type. There being no evidence on that issue the trial judge could not consider it ... | The Crown has failed to adduce technical evidence of the general trustworthiness of the process of speed detection by means of the Multanova radar camera and judicial notice cannot be taken of that fact at this time. That evidence of trustworthiness could be based on general experience as to the class of instrument with a knowledge that the mechanism of this instrument complies with the trustworthy type. There being no evidence on that issue the trial judge could not consider it ... | ||
| - | At this stage of use of the Multanova camera a person qualified to give evidence as to the workings, risk and general reliability of the camera in speed detection is necessary before a court can even consider whether or not it is trustworthy enough to accept as evidence of speed .. | + | At this stage of use of the Multanova camera a person qualified to give evidence as to the workings, risk and general reliability of the camera in speed detection is necessary before a court can even consider whether or not it is trustworthy enough to accept as evidence of speed ... |
| On the facts of this case there is no testimony by a qualified technician as to the general trustworthiness of the Multanova radar camera in calculating speed. As such, the photograph cannot be used as proof of the facts of speed of that vehicle. Where the technical evidence, without more, may prove to be the foundation of a conviction the courts may be apprised by means of technical evidence of the trustworthiness of the instrument. That can easily be done. It was not done here. | On the facts of this case there is no testimony by a qualified technician as to the general trustworthiness of the Multanova radar camera in calculating speed. As such, the photograph cannot be used as proof of the facts of speed of that vehicle. Where the technical evidence, without more, may prove to be the foundation of a conviction the courts may be apprised by means of technical evidence of the trustworthiness of the instrument. That can easily be done. It was not done here. | ||
ns/r._v._hebert_no._1_1991_canlii_13821_ns_pc.txt · Last modified: by victorzhou