R v Furlong

R. v. Furlong

[Citation not provided]
Ontario Court of Justice — Appeal transcript | 1985

Background

Mr. Furlong was charged with speeding after being clocked at 110 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. A police officer using a moving radar unit testified that he picked up Furlong's vehicle and clocked it at 110 km/h on three separate occasions. The officer stated he was satisfied the vehicle was speeding even visually, and that he tracked it with the radar gun.

At trial, Furlong's defence made a motion for non-suit (essentially arguing the Crown hadn't proven its case). The defence argued there was insufficient evidence about who tested the radar equipment. The Justice of the Peace denied the motion and convicted Furlong, who then appealed.

Issues

1. Was there sufficient evidence that a qualified operator tested the radar equipment?
2. Can a court infer who tested the equipment based on circumstantial evidence?

The Fatal Gap in Radar Evidence

The case turned on a critical gap in the officer's testimony. The officer testified that "the machine was tested at 5:39 and 5:56 and was working accurately per the manufacturer's specifications" — but crucially, he never said he tested it. While the officer did testify that he was a qualified radar operator, there was no direct evidence connecting him to the actual testing of the equipment.

The Crown argued that the officer's exact words were "It was tested and I found it to be accurate," but the appeal court judge listened to the tape recording and confirmed that's not what the officer actually said. The Justice of the Peace had ruled that he "knew" the officer was the one who did the testing because there was no one else in the police car — but this inference wasn't supported by evidence, as there was no testimony establishing the officer was alone in the vehicle.

The appeal court found this gap fatal to the prosecution's case. For radar evidence to be admissible, the Crown must prove that a qualified operator tested the equipment and found it working properly. Without clear evidence of who performed the test, this essential element of the case collapsed.

Key Takeaway

In radar cases, the Crown must prove exactly who tested the equipment — assumptions and inferences aren't enough.

This case shows that even seemingly minor gaps in police testimony can be fatal to the Crown's case. If you're facing a radar-based speeding charge, pay careful attention to whether the officer clearly testifies that he or she personally tested the equipment.