Toronto driver wins appeal of red light ticket nearly two decades after ‘sarcastic’ justice convicted him

A Toronto driver has successfully appealed a red light ticket he got nearly two decades back. Photo by AdobeStock

Article content

A Toronto driver who fought and lost an accusation of failing to stop at a red light nearly two decades back has cleared his name on appeal.

Article content

Neville Greene was charged on June 4, 2007. He pleaded not guilty, but a justice of the peace convicted him on July 10, 2008, after a police officer testified that he watched Greene turn left at the intersection of Sheppard Avenue West and Jane Street after the light turned red.

Article content

Article content

Article content

“The Justice of the Peace’s reasons for conviction consist of the following two sentences: The officer was clear, concise and convincing of all the elements of the offence and the observations he made. There will be a finding of guilt and there will be a fine imposed,” according to a recent appeal heard in Ontario’s Court of Justice.

Article content

Article content

Justice Brock Jones sided with Greene.

Article content

“It was not explained to me why it took nearly 18 years for the appeal to be heard, other than that the paperwork may have been ‘lost’ for a long time. Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, I granted the appeal,” Jones wrote in a May 14 decision.

Article content

“I found that the Justice of the Peace’s reasons for conviction were inadequate and failed to address any of the central issues raised at trial. I also found that the Justice did not provide the degree of assistance necessary to ensure a fair trial for a self-represented litigant.”

Article content

Greene tried to provide the police officer who was the lone prosecution witness at his trial with photos of the intersection in question so he could authenticate them, Jones said.

Article content

“The purpose was to have the officer respond to the suggestion that there was construction in the area at the time, which might have impeded normal traffic flow. The photographs also had impeachment value, as the officer had previously testified that there was no construction in the area at the time. Mr. Greene asked the Justice how he could present the evidence properly, and the Justice sarcastically quipped that ‘(this) isn’t Law and Order’ and he could testify later if he wanted to do so.”

Article content

Article content

Greene testified that when he entered the intersection, the traffic light was green, said the decision.

Article content

Article content

“He had to wait until the light turned amber before he could proceed through the intersection because another vehicle was in front of him. During cross-examination, he accepted the prosecutor’s suggestion that the traffic light might have turned red before he finished moving through the intersection, but not before he entered.”

Article content

When he tried to enter his photos of the intersection as evidence, the justice of the peace ruled they were inadmissible because they were taken the day after he was charged. “The Justice also demanded that the photographs be notarized.”

Article content

Jurists must explain how they arrive at a conclusion, Jones said.

Article content

“The reasons in this case fall woefully short of this standard. The Justice of the Peace does not explain that the appellant was presumed innocent or that the Crown bore the burden of proof on the essential elements of the offence,” said the judge.

Article content

“More concerning, the Justice of the Peace states, without any reasoning, that the officer’s evidence was accepted and the appellant was convicted. The Justice of the Peace did not address or analyze the appellant’s testimony at all, even though it could raise a reasonable doubt on an essential element of the offence: whether the appellant proceeded into the intersection when the light was red. Nor did the Justice of the Peace explain why the officer’s testimony was accepted and the appellant’s rejected, or why the appellant’s testimony was not at least capable of raising a reasonable doubt.”