R v Brewer

R. v. Brewer

[1988] O.J. No. 2531
Ontario Provincial Court — Lampkin Prov. Ct. J. | May 19, 1988

Background

Christopher Brewer was charged with speeding 90 km/h in a posted 60 km/h zone on September 4, 1986, on The Queensway South in Georgina. Police Officer Whittington used a hand-held Muni Quip radar unit (model TC 3) while parked at a Mac's Milk Store. The officer testified that he tested the radar using internal buttons and a tuning fork, spotted Brewer's grey pickup truck travelling at high speed, and obtained the radar reading that led to the charge.

At trial, Officer Whittington initially testified that he was "trained as a new officer by an experienced officer" and was "taken out in a vehicle and shown the operation of a radar." However, defence counsel R. Dullege subjected the officer's qualifications to intense cross-examination, revealing significant gaps in his training and knowledge of proper radar operation.

Issues

1. Was the police officer properly qualified to operate the radar device?
2. Was the radar testing procedure conducted according to manufacturer specifications?

The Qualification Challenge

Under cross-examination, Officer Whittington admitted he had never seen anything from the manufacturer, never read the radar manual, and couldn't confirm whether his testing procedures were correct. When testing the radar with a tuning fork, he struck it on the steering wheel and held it "directly in front of the radar" — but couldn't say whether this was the manufacturer's recommended procedure. Most damaging, he admitted there was no evidence that the officer who trained him was qualified to operate radar either.

The trial Justice of the Peace initially accepted the officer's evidence, reasoning that "without evidence to the contrary" he would assume the officer was qualified. However, on appeal, Judge Lampkin found this reasoning flawed. The judge extensively quoted from "The Law on Speeding and Radar" by Manraj and Haines, noting that hand-held radar units are "the most difficult to control of all types of radar units" and require careful, proper training and testing procedures.

Crucially, the court found that once the officer's qualifications were "seriously questioned and attacked under cross-examination," the Crown failed to prove he was a qualified radar operator. The officer "could not really confirm that what he did to use that radar unit was according to the manufacturer's specifications."

Key Takeaway

A police officer's claim to be "qualified" isn't enough if cross-examination reveals they lack proper training or knowledge of manufacturer specifications.

This case shows the power of thorough cross-examination in radar cases. When an officer admits they've never read the manual, don't know proper testing procedures, and can't confirm their trainer was qualified, their "qualification" becomes meaningless. The appeal was allowed and Brewer's conviction was overturned.