Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it a constitutional right for us to be able to confrot our accuser in a court of law? I’ve always thought it was, and if it isn’t, it should be. A thief or murderer is given at least the illusion of a fair trial infront of a jury of his/her peers. So why should traffic offenses be any different?
This frightens me.
Unfortunately, so does the journalism that brought it to my attention.
Instead of focusing on the lack of judicial resources (making it “not worth their while” for cops to show up in court, nevermind their lack of motivation to follow through in their part of the judicial process – do they actually believe in the viability of their accusation of a traffic violation if they can’t be bothered to show up and ensure it stands?) and the right we, as the accused have to a fair trial, the writer instead threw in some bullshit about photo radar, and forced a weak connection between the two.
I’m honestly not sure which makes me angrier.
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be infomed 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 a 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 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 punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
so, no. it seems that you don’t have a “constitutional right” to face your accuser in court in this country at least.
yep.. i just caught that article..
the quality was LAME.. rotten rotten writing..
anyhow.. if it’s any consolation it’s only applicable to surrey and delta ppl 🙂
we still have time to get upset when they decide to try and bring it to vancouver or bby..
🙂 fight the fight woman!@