RSS FeedDoes A Police Officer Have To Show Up For Court?
From my blog: Simon Says, Category: Police Myths.
Does A Police Officer Have to Show Up For Court?
Today, in my continuing saga of addressing Police Myths, I will be answering the question “does a police officer have to show up for court?” Although it is well known that officers sometimes do not show up for traffic court, Simon Says: Yes, they do have to attend court!
Attending all levels of court to give evidence in both criminal and provincial offence matters is one of the duties of a police officer. Section 42 (1) (e) of the Police Service Act lists one of an officer’s duties as “laying charges and participating in prosecutions” (that means showing up for court). Usually, this duty is also spelled out explicitly in the police service’s policies and procedures. The Court Attendance policy of the service I used to work for stated, “Members shall attend court as specified in the procedure.” In fact, later in the policy, under the duties of the Officer in Charge, it states that they are to take disciplinary action against an officer who did not attend court as required.
So why do officers occasionally not show up for traffic court? Most people have heard of someone who went to court to fight a traffic ticket, was told the officer wasn’t there, and had the ticket withdrawn.
The reason for this is usually that the officer got tied up dealing with something on the road and was not able to finish it in time to get to court. Officers start their shifts early in the morning (usually 7:00 am), which gives them plenty of time to get involved in something by the time court is scheduled to start (usually 9:30 or 10:00 am). Due to the nature of situations an officer deals with on the road, they can’t always just stop what they’re doing to go to court.
The other most common reason is that the officer is on holidays or sick.
In either case, without the officer to give evidence, the crown prosecutor likely has no reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction, which leaves them with two choices. They can either bring a motion to adjourn the matter to a latter date or withdraw the charges. Which option they choose depends on a number of factor, primarily the seriousness of the offence. In criminal court, the crown will always bring a motion to adjourn, and it will probably be granted by the Judge. In provincial offences court it is far more likely that the crown will withdraw, especially if there are civilian witnesses who would be inconvenienced by having to return on another date.
The important thing to remember about this myth is that it is not up to the officer’s discretion whether they will attend court. Regardless of what they have said when issuing a ticket or what impression they left you with, they must attend court unless they are physically unable to do so.
Justice on Target
From my blog: Simon Says.
In my last post I discussed the current state of the legal system, with respect to the time it takes for a case to be completed in court. With averages in 2009 of 214 days to completion and 9.2 court appearances, it’s not hard to understand why the public perception is that the system isn’t working very efficiently.
The provincial government has been aware of the dramatically increasing trend in these numbers over the past decade and in June of 2008 Attorney General Chris Bentley announced the government’s strategy to deal with this: Justice on Target.
The goal of Justice on Target is a 30% reduction in the average number of days and court appearances of 2007 numbers (which were 205 days and 9.2 appearances) by June of 2012. If successful, this would result in half a million fewer court appearances each year.
The first phase of the initiative identified seven strategies designed to move straightforward cases through the system faster, allowing more time for complex cases that require it. The first two initiatives to be implemented are dedicated prosecution and on site legal aid
In 2008, the Ontario Courts of Justice in Newmarket, North York, and London were designated as the first “Action Sites” in the phase one of the rollout. Phase two began in 2009 and included Toronto’s Old City Hall, Brampton, Windsor, Sudbury, Kitchener, Etobicoke, College Park and Scarborough.
The Justice on Target strategies were supposedly developed after consultation with all relevant participants in the criminal justice system. I can’t speak for the other participants, but I know that in policing, when someone at the top (i.e. the chief or, say, the Attorney General) asks for your input the typical PC response of management is to say what you think they want to hear. Shockingly, no one with a dissenting opinion ever seems to be asked to share their ideas. I wonder who exactly was asked for their opinions and to what extent this happened with Justice on Target.
Justice on Target is full of lofty goals and nice buzz words, but is it working? Let’s look at the numbers and then decide. Note that the only sites we can examine at this point are the three from the first phase, which began in 2008. We will use 2007 as a baseline.
In 2007 Newmarket had an average of 195 days and 8.5 appearances. In 2008 it was 218 days and 9.3 appearances, an increase of 11.8% and 9.4% respectively. 2009 showed a drop of 7.3% and 11.2% to 202 days and 8.2 appearances. Not bad…
In 2007 North York had an average of 224 days and 9.5 appearances. Statistics remained constant in 2008, but in 2009 there was a drop of 13.4% and 10.5% respectively to 194 days and 8.5 appearances. Pretty good!
London had an average of 181 days and 9.4 appearances in 2007. In 2008 the days increased by 5.5% to 191, while appearances fell 3.2% to 9.1. In 2009 days fell back 4.7% to 182, while appearances increased 3.3%, back to 2007 numbers. Ok, that’s a little confusing…
The final assessment? Although the numbers are not entirely consistent, they do look promising. I would note that since 2000 there have been periods prior to Justice on Target where there has been a decline in the numbers from the previous year, although there has definitely been an overall increasing trend. It will be interesting to see if numbers continue to decline in 2010 and beyond for these three sites and if the sites added in 2009 have similar results.
I look forward to revisiting this topic with you next year for another look.
Death by procedure
US judge ‘ignored death row plea’
The prisoner, Michael Wayne Richard, was put to death hours after she allegedly shut the court, despite being told an appeal was imminent.
