got a ticket - what should i do?

[justin]

isn't court time OT pay for the cops? take it to court anyway and file for section 11b court dates are as far as 14-16 months out.. if you can't defend yourself, get a ticket fighter.. you'll probably pay him/her the amount you'd pay for the ticket (or maybe less) but they'll get it thrown out of court (hopefully) on the violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 11b says you have the right to be tried within a 'reasonable' amount of time.. reasonable used to be 6-8mos but it's been increased to 10-12 IIRC.. courts are backed up tho.. my court date is 14 months after my infraction)

fight it!! good luck..

that's correct.... so in reality, they would get paid EVEN more to show up.... $50/hour (AFAIK) x whatever number of hours, 6 hour minimum, even if they are only there for 1 hour.

either way... fight the ticket... you might win, you might lose. personally, I think that getting a ticket for a dirty plate is silly, but the law is the law.

Good luck.

[Axela Mazda 3]

thanks everyone!

court it is

[Simkins]

isn't court time OT pay for the cops? take it to court anyway and file for section 11b court dates are as far as 14-16 months out.. if you can't defend yourself, get a ticket fighter.. you'll probably pay him/her the amount you'd pay for the ticket (or maybe less) but they'll get it thrown out of court (hopefully) on the violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 11b says you have the right to be tried within a 'reasonable' amount of time.. reasonable used to be 6-8mos but it's been increased to 10-12 IIRC.. courts are backed up tho.. my court date is 14 months after my infraction)

fight it!! good luck..

I doubt that you would have the charged dropped using the defense that you were not tired within a reasonable amount of time. R v. Askov set the "standard" at 8 months but, at trial court for this ticket I doubt they would follow this standard, although if they did not you could always appeal. I would just make an appointment with the prosecutor and have the fine reduced.

[Wild Weasel]

I tried that argument after over a year and it got shot down.

My impression is that if the courts can't accomodate you within a reasonable time, then the solution is to redefine what constitutes a "reasonable time". Apparently the constitution only applies to major offenses like murder and stuff.

[3GFX]

I had a ticket for 20 over on kipling. Ontario Traffic tickets represented me.

Short story = 13 months to go to trial meant I was scott free

[majic]

I doubt that you would have the charged dropped using the defense that you were not tired within a reasonable amount of time. R v. Askov set the "standard" at 8 months but, at trial court for this ticket I doubt they would follow this standard, although if they did not you could always appeal. I would just make an appointment with the prosecutor and have the fine reduced.

that's why i am not fighting the ticket MYSELF b/c i don't know the ins and outs.. the ticket fighter has helped my friends in the past so i'll just leave it up to him..

as far as getting the fine reduced, it would still end up on my abstract and that ain't cool.. i might as well not fight it at all.. (would still be a minor conviction)

[majic]

I tried that argument after over a year and it got shot down.

maybe you didn't perform all the steps necessary, such as getting a full disclosure and citing sources and basing your defence on a 'case law' (R. vs Askov).. then again as i said i'm not versed in it well enough to represent myself.. i'd rather get someone who's got a proven track record to do it for me..

My impression is that if the courts can't accomodate you within a reasonable time, then the solution is to redefine what constitutes a "reasonable time". Apparently the constitution only applies to major offenses like murder and stuff.

it's your right to a fair trial within reasonable time, it doesn't say "trial for MURDER" or "BIG TIME LAW BREAKING CASE".. maybe in your case you didn't cite a SIMILAR enough case that was thrown out.. see the ticket fighter can probably just go back to all his cases, find a similar offence and say "this dude got off so my client should too" - of course this is just an example and i have no clue if THAT statement would hold water in court..

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Charter...tml#juridiques

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

[Wild Weasel]

it's your right to a fair trial within reasonable time, it doesn't say "trial for MURDER" or "BIG TIME LAW BREAKING CASE".. maybe in your case you didn't cite a SIMILAR enough case that was thrown out..

I'm sure you're right about those ticket fighters doing a better job, but I did go through all the proper motions and filled out the proper papers, served to all the proper people.

The judge went through all the paperwork and noted that it was all done correctly, and then proceded to tell me how that constitutional right really wasn't meant for cases this minor and that the backlog of the courts was now deemed acceptable.

What I wrote, though laced with bitterness, wasn't my opinion. It was the opinion of the judge that threw out my motion.

[majic]

ic.. sux to hear.. well i'll just keep my fingers crossed then

[BM3]

i didnt have time to go over all the posts here but maybe someone has already posted what im going to say.

i had a very similar situation with the dirty plate. instead of it being dirty, i had a blue license plate protector covering the plate which led the officer to give me a ticket for an obstruction of plate infraction. i went to court and i won, i got a suspended charge which meant that they threw it out.

this is what i did:
- i took a picture of the license plate without the plate protectors, make sure the date is in the pictures (in your case, clean it thoroughly so the plate is CLEARLY visible)
- showed the pictures in court and told them i rectified it as soon as i was stopped by the officer because my intentions were not to block the plate.
- i guess your intentions were not to block it as well, so as long as you show that you care and you rectified it, the judge should drop it and you're free but then the judge i had was fully on my side the whole time, i had to pull out the "im sorry im s..s..stu...studdering but im scared, ive never been to court before." after that, the judge tried to calm me down and guided me to tell my side of the story. i apologized and said that it wont happen again because now i know it's wrong.

again, it worked for me, might not work for u, but i just thought id let you know because i think the two cases are very similar in nature. its still an obstruction of plate offense.

good luck

and after that incident, i always run into that same officer because we both work for the government lol, i dont talk to him though...

[BM3]

I tried that argument after over a year and it got shot down.

My impression is that if the courts can't accomodate you within a reasonable time, then the solution is to redefine what constitutes a "reasonable time". Apparently the constitution only applies to major offenses like murder and stuff.

indictable offenses like murder do not have a time limit. you can commit a crime 30 years ago and still be convicted if they find out it is you even thought its been years. those german nazis in canada got sentenced to jail after years and years of investigation. those guys in jail are like 80 years old and still got convicted. i guess when they say within reasonable time, you gotta compare it to what everyone else is waiting for their trial. if its a standard 1 year and you happen to wait 1 year and 2 months, i dont think its a valid defense, but if its on average 6 months and you had to wait 1.5 year, then you can argue it.

basically murders, homicide etc. do not have a time frame. there was a case where some dude was convicted after 30 years because the file was never closed, they found tapes of the murder i think or they took dna samples, i dont remember, but good luck with your ticket

[Wild Weasel]

You're talking about the statute of limitations. This has nothing to do with that.

The charter argument is against the right to a timely trial. That means that once you are charged with something, you have the right to have it go to court in a reasonable amount of time.

You're right in that if they find out you murdered someone after the fact, then they can still charge you. Once they lay that charge though, they can't let you languish in prison for 5 years before it comes to trial.