R. v. Reagan (M.J.), 2015 SKQB 33
|Court:||Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan|
|Case Date:||February 02, 2015|
|Citations:||2015 SKQB 33;(2015), 469 Sask.R. 143 (QB)|
R. v. Reagan (M.J.) (2015), 469 Sask.R. 143 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite:  Sask.R. TBEd. MR.012
Michael James Reagan (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(2013 QBA No. 10; 2015 SKQB 33)
Indexed As: R. v. Reagan (M.J.)
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial Centre of Prince Albert
February 2, 2015.
Reagan was found guilty of driving 102 km per hour in a 60 km per hour speed zone. He appealed the conviction. Reagan argued that the trial judge relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence in making his finding that the instrument used to determine Reagan's speed was functioning properly on the date of the alleged offence.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.
Motor Vehicles - Topic 2686
Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Rate of speed - Evidence and proof - By radar equipment or other speed detection device - Reagan was found guilty of driving 102 km per hour in a 60 km per hour speed zone - At the trial, the police officer provided viva voce evidence respecting his qualifications and experience operating the laser unit and confirming that the laser unit used on the date of the alleged offence was working properly and that he tested the unit at the beginning and end of his shift - During cross-examination, the officer acknowledged that he made notes respecting his testing of the instrument on the day in question, but he did not have them in his possession on the date of trial - Reagan appealed his conviction - He argued that the officer's notes were inadmissible hearsay - The trial judge referenced the notes on two occasions during his oral judgment - Accordingly, Reagan submitted that it could be reasonably inferred that, in the mind of the trial judge, the evidence respecting the existence of the notes bolstered the officer's credibility - As such, he argued that the finding that the instrument was working properly at the time of the offence was based in part upon inadmissible hearsay evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The court was not satisfied that the trial judge's failure to rule on the admissibility of the existence of the notes, nor the reference to the notes in his oral judgment, made any difference in the outcome of the trial - Even if the trial judge had determined that reference to the notes was inadmissible, it could not reasonably be held that such finding would have impacted the outcome of the trial given the other evidence available to the court respecting the functioning of the laser unit - On the whole, there was sufficient admissible evidence available to have concluded that Reagan was driving at a speed of 102 km per hour in a 60 km per hour zone.
R. v. Lomenda (D.G.),  7 W.W.R. 525; 440 Sask.R. 222; 2014 SKQB 77, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. R.R.B. (2013), 414 Sask.R. 184; 575 W.A.C. 184; 2013 SKCA 52, refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. Abrametz (P.V.) (2014), 442 Sask.R. 86; 616 W.A.C. 86; 2014 SKCA 84, refd to. [para. 13].
Gregory L. Bauman, for the appellant;
Nicole A. Sawchuk, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard before Goebel, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following judgment on February 2, 2015.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP