13°c Overcast
10°c Light rain
Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Blind spot in use of photo radar
,&k
The decision by the provincial prosecutions department to drop its case on a photo-radar ticket taken at a controversial intersection has created speculation that the technology used in the area can't be trusted. Without an explanation from the Crown as to why it didn't challenge evidence on that point before a magistrate, the public understandably is wondering whether the province lacks faith in the technology in some circumstances.
That should be clarified. Extenuating circumstances in some cases may excuse a Crown attorney from explaining a decision to stay a court case. This case held particular interest among the public as many people issued tickets in the same area have insisted the radar readings must have been inaccurate. The Crown's silence on the reasons for staying the case adds fuel to those perceptions.
The problem with the Grant and Nathaniel location, in the minds of those challenging the radar technology used by police, is that the metal poles between the radar and the piece of Grant Avenue where vehicles are nabbed could interfere with the accuracy of the reading. WiseUp Winnipeg, an activist group opposing photo radar, points to cases in Australia that have been withdrawn on what it says is the same basis.
The Crown attorney complained that a man allowed to testify as an expert witness about the technology did not have the experience or background to make conclusions given to the magistrate. The case was withdrawn, the Justice Department says, because the Crown could not call its own expert witness to rebut that evidence.
As such, the ticket issued to Philip Johst was scrapped. That means that, as a test case, it is meaningless, having no bearing on any other issued at that corner of Grant Avenue.
The Crown does not proceed with a charge laid by police when there appears to be no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. There can be many reasons why a case falls apart, mid-stream, not all of which relate to the quality of the evidence. But without a good explanation from the prosecutor, people are justified in wondering whether the photo radar technology is unreliable at that location.
Transportation Minister Steve Ashton says only that the use of photo radar, overall, has made Winnipeg streets safer. That is precious little to support continued use of the technology if it is not reliable in some places. The opposition Tories have called for independent testing of the equipment at Grant and Nathaniel. That is a reasonable avenue to address lingering doubt about its usefulness at a very controversial corner.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition May 25, 2012 A12
More Editorials
- Back to Top
- Return to Editorials
Poll
Most Popular Editorials
- Hard questions
- A hemispheric view of pot law
- SNC gives Canada black eye
- Supreme Court gets unfair flak
- Rule by law the new norm
- Mr. Katz strikes out again
- Welcome to the 1900s, drinkers
- Transit justice
- Canada's core values are strong
- Mayor Selinger
Ads by Google
You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.
Have Your Say
New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.
The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.