BURST
A Toronto driver who fought and lost an accusation of failing to stop at a red light nearly two decades back has cleared his name on appeal.
Neville Greene was charged on June 4, 2007. He pleaded not guilty, but a justice of the peace convicted him on July 10, 2008, after a police officer testified that he watched Greene turn left at the intersection of Sheppard Avenue West and Jane Street after the light turned red.
“The Justice of the Peace’s reasons for conviction consist of the following two sentences: The 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,” according to a recent appeal heard in Ontario’s Court of Justice.
Justice Brock Jones sided with Greene.
“It 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 ‘lost’ for a long time. Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, I granted the appeal,” Jones wrote in a May 14 decision.
“I found that the Justice of the Peace’s reasons for conviction were inadequate and failed to address any of the central issues raised at trial. I also found that the Justice did not provide the degree of assistance necessary to ensure a fair trial for a self-represented litigant.”
Greene tried to provide the police officer who was the lone prosecution witness at his trial with photos of the intersection in question so he could authenticate them, Jones said.
“The purpose was to have the officer respond to the suggestion that there was construction in the area at the time, which might have impeded normal traffic flow. The photographs also had impeachment value, as the officer had previously testified that there was no construction in the area at the time. Mr. Greene asked the Justice how he could present the evidence properly, and the Justice sarcastically quipped that ‘(this) isn’t Law and Order’ and he could testify later if he wanted to do so.”
Greene testified that when he entered the intersection, the traffic light was green, said the decision.
“He had to wait until the light turned amber before he could proceed through the intersection because another vehicle was in front of him. During cross-examination, he accepted the prosecutor’s suggestion that the traffic light might have turned red before he finished moving through the intersection, but not before he entered.”
When he tried to enter his photos of the intersection as evidence, the justice of the peace ruled they were inadmissible because they were taken the day after he was charged. “The Justice also demanded that the photographs be notarized.”
Jurists must explain how they arrive at a conclusion, Jones said.
“The reasons in this case fall woefully short of this standard. The Justice of the Peace does not explain that the appellant was presumed innocent or that the Crown bore the burden of proof on the essential elements of the offence,” said the judge.
“More concerning, the Justice of the Peace states, without any reasoning, that the officer’s evidence was accepted and the appellant was convicted. The Justice of the Peace did not address or analyze the appellant’s 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. Nor did the Justice of the Peace explain why the officer’s testimony was accepted and the appellant’s rejected, or why the appellant’s testimony was not at least capable of raising a reasonable doubt.”
Reasons “are particularly important when a court wrestles with contradictory evidence on a key issue,” Jones said.
“I recognize this was a short trial on a simple matter, and that provincial offences courts are inundated with multiple matters that may be set for a trial on any given day,” he said. “Even considering the extremely busy nature of these courts and the routine nature of this trial, the failure of the Justice to abide by the inherent duty to provide meaningful reasons cannot be excused.”
The justice of the peace didn’t tell Greene how the trial process operates, Jones said.
When Greene asked whether he could call evidence about ongoing construction on the day in question, the justice of the peace “dismissed his question without providing any guidance on how he might properly present that potentially exculpatory evidence.”
Evidence from any witness, “including a police officer’s, must be assessed by the court and will not merely be uncritically accepted,” Jones said.
“Contrary to the Justice’s mid-trial ruling, it was not only permissible but entirely appropriate for Mr. Greene to show the photographs to the officer during cross-examination, giving the officer an opportunity to reconsider his position that there was no construction in the area at the time of the offence. He should have assisted Mr. Greene with this questioning. Furthermore, he was wrong to reject the introduction of the photographs when Mr. Greene testified. Even if the photographs were taken the day after the offence, if Mr. Greene had testified to their accuracy and to the presence at the time of the offence of the construction depicted in them, that would have been a sufficient basis for their authentication.”
And there was no reason for the photos to be notarized, “when the photographs’ accuracy can be stipulated to by a live witness,” Jones said.
“Finally, I 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.”
Jones vacated Greene’s conviction and acquitted him “as it would not be in the public interest to send the case back for a new trial in these circumstances.”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.