There is a lot of misinformation and inaccurate information online regarding the dispute of traffic tickets in British Columbia. Websites list common defences to traffic tickets, but the reality is that traffic ticket defences vary based on the province and country. What may be a defence in Manitoba is not a defence to a traffic ticket in British Columbia.
For that reason, in this blog post we will break down some of the most common defences to traffic tickets issued in British Columbia.
Necessity
Many traffic tickets in British Columbia are considered something known as “absolute liability offences.” This means that the offence of due diligence — that you took all reasonable steps to comply with the law but still broke it — does not apply.
Speeding is an absolute liability offence. And it is the most common ticket in which people try to make due diligence arguments, such as that their speedometer was broken. In absolute liability offences, the Crown does not need to prove that you intended to break the law. So a broken speedometer is not a defence to a speeding ticket.
However, you may be able to use the defence of necessity against a speeding ticket or other absolute liability ticket. In order to raise the defence of necessity, you must provide evidence that you had no legal alternative but to speed, that the risk you avoided by speeding is greater than the harm you caused, and that you were facing imminent peril. For example, if you were speeding to avoid a dangerous driver, this defence might be valid.
To raise the defence of necessity you must show that there is an air of reality to the defence. Once you have established an air of reality, which is usually done through detailed testimony, the burden remains on the Crown to disprove that necessity applies. These shifting legal burdens and different legal standards require a careful application by someone familiar with the law.
It’s important to note that the defence of necessity is extremely difficult to use successfully. Even doctors rushing to medical emergencies have failed to successful argue this defence.
Faulty RADAR Reading, or Improper Operation
Technology and its operators are not infallible. Unlike roadside breathalyzers, calibration logs for police radar devices are not documents that are routinely disclosed. In fact, it is a common misconception that laser and RADAR devices used by police require calibration. Rather, these devices arrive pre-calibrated from the manufacturer and are only tested, not calibrated, by police. If, after testing, they are found not to be in working order, the police are supposed to send them back for service.
In British Columbia, the testing requirements for laser and RADAR devices are strict, and the testing and repair history of a device can be questioned during the cross-examination of the ticket-issuing officer. However, in order to successfully challenge the testing and operation of the device, you must first understand how that testing is done and the rules surrounding the operation of the device.
I have received training in operating laser and RADAR speed measurement devices used by police, as well as in visual speed estimation. This makes me particularly well-placed to challenge police on the operation and use of these devices and able to meet the necessary parameters to introduce the evidence to show they did it wrong when that comes up.
Obscured Speed Signage
If you can prove that the speed sign was completely obstructed or otherwise unreadable, you may have a defence. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that the sign was obstructed or illegible. This defence is strengthened by photo, video, and eyewitness evidence, which you should try to get as soon as possible after you are issued a ticket.
The defence that the speed signage was obstructed is not available to you if the sign was only not visible to you specifically, rather than to all drivers. Additionally, this defence is not valid if the infraction occurs in an area where the speed limit legally did not need to be posted, such as within a municipality.
The type of speeding charge on the ticket will dictate whether the speed sign defence applies, and will also dictate what evidence may be necessary to make it out. This defence typically requires you to testify in the case and so having a lawyer can assist with preparation to testify and be cross-examined.
Reasonable Doubt
Tickets can be issued based on faulty laser or radar readings or inaccurate visual estimations. If there is reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the device or the officer’s observation, this can serve as a defence. Demonstrating that the device used to measure your speed was unreliable or that the officer’s estimate was inaccurate can cast doubt on the validity of the ticket.
There are other requirements for evidence in speeding ticket or traffic ticket cases. These include the date, time, jurisdiction, location of the offence, whether signage or lines were lawfully erected and in place, and whether the ticket was issued by a person with proper authority to do so. Identifying when there is a reasonable doubt based on the evidence and making submissions on that is something that can be done with legal skills.
If you’re concerned about a traffic ticket that you are facing, please contact my office and we will be happy to assist you.
