R v Ziara

R. v. M.A. Ziara

Provincial Offences Appeal Court, Province of Ontario
His Honour Judge G. E. Michel | November 24, 1987, Sudbury

Background

Majid A. Ziara was charged under s.109 of the Highway Traffic Act for speeding — doing 130 km/h in a 90 km/h zone. The case came down to a battle over radar evidence and whether the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

At trial, the Crown called a police officer who testified about using radar to clock Ziara's speed. The defence argued that the Crown had failed to provide sufficient evidence that the radar unit was working properly, that Ziara didn't receive a fair trial, and that the learned Justice of the Peace's findings weren't based on evidence adduced by the Crown.

Issues

1. Did the Crown provide sufficient evidence that the radar unit was properly qualified and working accurately?
2. Was the evidence regarding radar testing adequate to prove the accused's speed beyond a reasonable doubt?

The Radar Evidence Problem

The court found major problems with the Crown's radar evidence. The officer testified that he was a qualified radar operator with two and a half years of experience, but when asked about the specific testing procedures, his testimony fell apart. He couldn't clearly state whether he had checked the radar unit before or after the offence, and gave contradictory evidence about the timing of his tests.

Most damaging was the officer's testimony about the radar unit's accuracy tests. He indicated that tests were conducted both before and after clocking vehicles, but then said the first time he checked the unit was "after" the offence occurred. The court found this evidence insufficient to establish that the radar was working properly when it allegedly detected Ziara's speed.

The court emphasized that unlike breathalyzer units, radar units don't have statutory recognition under the law. This means the Crown must qualify radar evidence through witness testimony, and that evidence must be credible and reliable. Here, the officer's contradictory and unclear testimony about testing procedures failed to meet that standard.

Key Takeaway

Radar evidence must be properly qualified through clear, consistent testimony about testing procedures — vague or contradictory evidence about when and how the unit was tested can sink the Crown's case.

Self-represented defendants facing radar-based charges should carefully cross-examine officers about their testing procedures, looking for gaps, contradictions, or uncertainty about when tests were performed and what the results showed.