R v Murphy

Her Majesty The Queen v. Patrick Murphy

Court File 81937428
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice D.C. Downie | December 16, 2004

Background

Patrick Murphy was pulled over on Highway 401 eastbound near the Homer Watson overpass on April 3rd at 22:55. OPP Sergeant Moriarty clocked him doing 131 km/h in a 100 km/h zone using a Genesis II radar unit. Murphy was charged under section 128(1)(c) of the Highway Traffic Act for speeding.

At trial, Murphy was represented by agent Lynn Carter. The case seemed straightforward until Carter noticed something odd about the officer's notes. They weren't handwritten observations made during the traffic stop — they were pre-typed forms with blanks filled in. The officer's testimony matched his notes almost word-for-word, using technical acronyms and phrases that suggested he wasn't testifying from memory but reading from prepared materials.

Issues

1. Can a police officer rely on pre-typed notes with fill-in-the-blank sections for his testimony?
2. Does using "canned evidence" invalidate the prosecution's case?

The Canned Evidence Problem

Justice Downie was not impressed. The officer had clearly prepared a generic, pre-typed template covering all the standard elements needed to prove a speeding case — radar qualifications, equipment testing, acronyms explaining radar capabilities, and boilerplate language about "devices designed for accurately measuring the speed of motor vehicles." During testimony, he simply filled in the specific details for Murphy's case.

The Crown prosecutor tried to defend this as efficient police work, arguing that officers handle many similar cases and use templates to ensure they cover all necessary legal elements. But Justice Downie saw it differently. He found that this "canned evidence" approach meant the officer wasn't actually testifying from his recollection of the specific incident — he was just reading from a prepared script.

The judge noted that while officers routinely refer to notes to refresh their memory, this went far beyond that. The officer had pre-determined what his evidence would be before even conducting the traffic stop, then simply plugged in Murphy's specific details. This undermined the integrity of his testimony about what actually happened during this particular incident.

Key Takeaway

Pre-typed "fill in the blank" police evidence can be successfully challenged as canned and unreliable.

If you notice that an officer's testimony sounds overly rehearsed or technical, or if their notes appear to be pre-printed forms rather than contemporaneous observations, this could be grounds for challenging the evidence. The court expects officers to testify about what they actually observed and did in your specific case — not just recite from a template.