R v Mukasa

R. v. Mukasa; R. v. Spinosa; R. v. O'Brien

[2001] O.J. No. 262
Ontario Court of Justice — Pockele J. | November 16, 2000

Background

Three drivers — Kayemba Mukasa, Maximillian Spinosa, and Martin O'Brien — were all charged with speeding under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act. All three cases hinged on the same question: whether laser speed detection devices (LSDDs) required special comparative testing against radar devices to be admissible as evidence. Mukasa and Spinosa had been acquitted at trial because justices of the peace ruled the laser evidence inadmissible without proper testing. O'Brien had been convicted and was appealing. The Crown wanted the acquittals overturned, while O'Brien wanted his conviction quashed.

The cases all turned on earlier court decisions that had required police to test laser devices against established radar technology every 30 days to prove accuracy. This comparative testing requirement had become a significant burden for police forces and a common defence strategy for traffic tickets.

Issues

1. Is laser speed detection technology still "new or novel" technology requiring special verification?
2. If comparative testing is required, how frequently must it occur and is a 30-day schedule scientifically justified?

The Death of "New Technology"

Justice Pockele delivered a sweeping judgment that fundamentally changed how Ontario courts treat laser evidence. He ruled that after eight years of use in Canada (since 1993), laser speed detection was no longer "new or novel" technology. The judge noted that laser principles were developed after World War II, are based on "immutable laws of physics," and are now used everywhere from CD players to space shuttle docking systems.

Most importantly, Justice Pockele criticized courts for imposing technical requirements without scientific justification. He found that in every case over eight years, no evidence had been presented to contradict the accuracy of laser devices. The judge stated: "If no such evidence has come before the Court in the last eight years, it is time to accept that LSDD technology is so well established that there is no evidence to the contrary."

The court specifically rejected the 30-day comparative testing schedule imposed in R. v. Wong, calling it "a time period without any scientific or technical validity." Justice Pockele found that requiring routine comparative testing against radar flew in the face of uncontradicted expert evidence that such testing was unnecessary.

Key Takeaway

Laser speed detection evidence no longer requires comparative testing against radar devices to be admissible in Ontario courts.

This decision effectively eliminated a major defence strategy for speeding tickets. Self-represented defendants can no longer challenge laser evidence simply by arguing that police failed to conduct regular comparative testing against radar devices.