CASE LAW - R v Ren
Zihe Ren was convicted of speeding for traveling in excess of 80 km/h in the posted 50 km/h zone of the 4900 block of West 16th Avenue in Vancouver. He appealed the conviction citing that:
- The investigating officer, by mistaking the model of his vehicle on the traffic violation ticket, demonstrated that he was “obviously absent-minded" and it should be assumed that he was equally absent-minded about his estimate of the accused’s speed; and
- The decision is invalid because the investigating officer did not provide calibration records of his “speeding radar".
Madam Justice Gropper found:
- In respect of the officer’s error concerning the vehicle’s model name, I agree with the Judicial Justice in his determination that the model of the vehicle is not an essential element of the offence, nor is it essential to have that on the violation ticket at all. The mistake in the model on the violation ticket is simply that: a mistake. It does not mean that the officer was absent-minded in any respect.
- Mr. Ren did not challenge the operation or calibration of the laser device until he set this out in his grounds for appeal. He did not question Cst. Toews about it. He did not suggest to the Judicial Justice that the device was not properly calibrated. While Mr. Ren is entitled to trial fairness and the right to make full answer in defence, it is also clear that he must seek disclosure diligently and in a timely manner. His failure to do so is an important factor in determining on appeal whether a new trial should be ordered...
Mr. Ren's appeal was dismissed.