R v Musleh

R. v. Musleh

Provincial Offences Court, Toronto
Justice White — January 12, 1990

Background

Mohammed Musleh was charged with speeding 91 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometre per hour zone on Lakeshore Boulevard West in Toronto. The officer had set up his radar unit and tested it before and after his shift, finding it working properly. When Musleh's vehicle passed, the officer obtained a radar reading and pursued the vehicle, ultimately stopping Musleh and issuing the ticket.

At trial, the officer testified that he had made notes in his notebook about the incident. However, when it came time to present evidence, there was a problem with how the officer had prepared and used those notes.

Issues

1. Whether the officer's evidence about the radar reading was reliable given issues with his note-taking
2. Whether the officer's conduct in modifying his notes undermined the prosecution's case

The Problem with the Officer's Notes

The key issue emerged during cross-examination. The defence established that the officer had modified his notebook entries after the incident. Specifically, the officer had crossed out portions of his original notes and made changes to improve how they looked or to correct information. The court found this practice completely unacceptable.

Justice White emphasized that police officers must maintain the integrity of their contemporaneous notes. When an officer alters notes after the fact — even with good intentions — it undermines the reliability of the evidence and calls into question the officer's credibility. The court noted that proper police procedure requires officers to make accurate notes at the time of the incident and leave them unaltered.

The judge was particularly concerned that the officer appeared to be "tidying up" his evidence, which suggested a lack of understanding about the importance of preserving original documentation in legal proceedings.

Key Takeaway

Police officers who modify their notes after an incident destroy the credibility of their evidence, even if the modifications seem minor.

For self-represented defendants, this case shows the importance of asking detailed questions about an officer's note-taking practices during cross-examination. If you can establish that notes were altered after the fact, you may be able to successfully challenge the officer's credibility and the reliability of their evidence.