An Ontario judge has ruled in favour of a Toronto driver who was issued a traffic ticket more than 18 years ago after he found that the trial was unfair and the previous judge\u2019s comments were \u201cunbecoming.\u201d<\/p>\n
Court documents released following the appeal at Ontario\u2019s Court of Justice last week show that Neville Greene was charged on June 4, 2007 after a Toronto police officer testified that he went through the intersection of Jane Street and Sheppard Avenue West on a red light.<\/p>\n
Greene pleaded not guilty, claiming there was construction in the area at the time which might have impeded normal traffic flow. The trial was held before Justice of the Peace J. Frederick in Toronto on July 10, 2008 and Greene was convicted.<\/p>\n
In delivering his decision at the time, Frederick said: \u201cThe officer was clear, concise and convincing of all the elements of the offence and the observations he made. There will be a finding of guilt and there will be a fine imposed.\u201d<\/p>\n
But Justice Brock Jones, who oversaw the appeal hearing last Wednesday, raised issues with Frederick\u2019s conclusions, saying that the reasons for conviction were inadequate and failed to address any of the central issues raised at trial. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt was not explained to me why it took nearly 18 years for the appeal to be heard, other than that the paperwork may have been \u2018lost\u2019 for a long time. Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, I granted the appeal,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u2018This isn\u2019t \u2018Law and Order,\u2019\u2019 judge tells appellant<\/p>\n
Greene represented himself at the 2008 trial and during the cross-examination of the Toronto police officer he attempted to present photographs of the intersection where the alleged traffic violation took place.<\/p>\n
Jones said the photos, which were taken a day after Greene was stopped, had \u201cimpeachment value.\u201d He explained that Greene was trying to get the officer to respond to the suggestion that construction in the area may have impacted traffic that day, given that the officer previously testified that there was no construction taking place.<\/p>\n
When Greene asked the judge how he could present the evidence properly, he responded by saying \u201cthis isn\u2019t \u2018Law and Order\u2019\u201d and that he could testify later if he wanted to.<\/p>\n
During his testimony, Greene said he entered the intersection on a green light but was caught behind another car in the crossing as the light turned yellow. He agreed with the prosecutor that the light may have turned red while he was in the intersection, but not before he entered.<\/p>\n
When Greene attempted to enter the photographs into evidence a second time, the judge ruled that they were inadmissible because they were taken after the offence took place.<\/p>\n
Judge did not address or analyze appellant\u2019s testimony \u2018at all\u2019<\/p>\n
In awarding the appeal, Jones said the reasons for convicting Greene in 2008 fell \u201cwoefully short\u201d of legal precedents, and even \u201cmore concerning\u201d was that the officer\u2019s evidence was accepted and the appellant\u2019s was not.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Justice of the Peace did not address or analyze the appellant\u2019s testimony at all, even though it could raise a reasonable doubt on an essential element of the offence: whether the appellant proceeded into the intersection when the light was red,\u201d Jones wrote.<\/p>\n
Jones went on to say that while courts have to prioritize efficiency amid heavy case loads, they also have a duty to ensure that self-represented individuals have a fair trial as the process is \u201centirely alien\u201d to members of the public who are not legally trained.<\/p>\n
\u201cI observe that sarcastic remarks uttered by a Justice to a legally untrained person who is presumed innocent are unbecoming and may bring the administration of justice into disrepute,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Jones said he granted the appeal and vacated Greene\u2019s conviction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"An Ontario judge has ruled in favour of a Toronto driver who was issued a traffic ticket more…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":684369,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194291],"tags":[712,49,48,3302],"class_list":["post-684368","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-toronto","tag-apple-news","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-toronto"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/684368","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=684368"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/684368\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/684369"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=684368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=684368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=684368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}