R v Mohammadi

R. v. Mohammadi

[2010] O.J. No. 2977
Ontario Court of Justice — J.D.G. Waugh J. | April 12, 2010

Background

Abdul Mohammadi was charged with a speeding offence, presumably under the Highway Traffic Act. The case reached the Ontario Court of Justice in Brockville as a Crown appeal — meaning Mohammadi had been acquitted at trial, and the Crown was trying to overturn that acquittal. The Crown's case relied on radar evidence to prove Mohammadi's speed.

The original trial judge had acquitted Mohammadi, and now Justice Waugh was hearing the Crown's appeal of that acquittal. The Crown was arguing that the radar evidence should have been sufficient to secure a conviction.

Issues

1. Was the radar evidence properly authenticated according to the required procedures?
2. Should the Crown's appeal of the acquittal be allowed?

The Radar Testing Problem

Justice Waugh's decision hinged on a crucial procedural requirement for radar evidence. The judge explicitly referenced police manuals that require officers to first estimate the speed of a vehicle visually, then check that estimate against the radar reading to ensure the equipment is working properly. This visual estimate must be "within the parameters" of what the radar shows.

The Crown's evidence apparently consisted of the officer simply stating that Mohammadi "was going well over the speed limit" and arguing that this proved the radar was working correctly. Justice Waugh firmly rejected this approach, finding it insufficient to establish that the radar equipment had been properly tested according to the required procedures.

This case demonstrates that radar evidence isn't automatically admissible just because it shows speeding. The Crown must prove that the officer followed proper testing procedures, including making a visual speed estimate before consulting the radar device.

Key Takeaway

Saying someone was "going well over the speed limit" doesn't prove radar equipment was properly tested.

When defending against radar-based speeding charges, challenge whether the officer followed proper testing procedures, including making a visual speed estimate before checking the radar reading.