Constable David Beck a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE required to 'Take The Stand' September 21, 2012, for cross examination, for that reason had sworn an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was asked the following questions by Self Represented Litigant Andre Murray, questions specifically regarding Constable David Beck comprehension of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1.
Please Note: this herein above mentioned Court Hearing of September 21, 2012, for cross examination of arresting officer Constable David Beck was a continuation of a Trial regarding bylaw T-4 section 15, whereby Constable David Beck alleges Andre Murray was riding on the sidewalk with a bicycle in violation of a by-law of THE CITY OF FREDERICTON. This subject cross examination of arresting officer Constable David Beck is only one of two most serious aspects of the challenge to the subject by-law matter. The second most serious aspect is that of Andre Murray's Constitutional Challenge regarding bylaw T-4 section 15, riding on the sidewalk with a bicycle which will amongst other things reveal that Andre Murray has been violated by the actions of Constable David Beck thereby denied his guaranteed protection under The Constitution Act, 1982 which contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .
As if that is not enough, Self Represented Litigant Andre Murray will later illustrate that the Province of New Brunswick is negligent in having not brought all legislation of New Brunswick into compliance with The Constitution Act, 1982 which contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as is required and long over due.
Did you
Constable David Beck believe, on reasonable and probable grounds, that a person
had committed a prescribed offence? Yes or no?
Did you
Constable David Beck serve that person with a ticket in prescribed form? Yes
or no?
What is
prescribed form Constable David Beck?
Please describe this______________.
Constable
David Beck did you ask the defendant to sign a notice of prosecution
corresponding to the ticket? Yes or no?
Constable
David Beck did you certify on the notice of prosecution that the defendant failed
or refused to sign? Yes or no?
Constable
David Beck did you file notice of prosecution? Yes or no?
Constable
David Beck when did you file notice of prosecution? Date____________
Constable
David Beck what was the date stated in the ticket for the defendant’s
appearance? _____________________
Please Note: The implications of the answers given by Constable
David Beck to questions such as provided herein above may be as follows:
According to section 12(2) of Provincial Offences Procedure
Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1 Proceedings in respect of the offence charged in the
ticket (procedures), commence when the notice of prosecution is filed with the
judge.
According to section 12(1) of Provincial Offences Procedure
Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1, Unless payment
of a fixed penalty is made in accordance with section 14 within the time
stated in the ticket, the notice of
prosecution shall be filed with a judge no later than the date stated in the
ticket for the defendant’s appearance.
According to section 16(1) of
Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1. Where the defendant has not paid a fixed penalty
before the time stated in the ticket for the payment of the fixed penalty and
does not appear in court at the time and place stated in the ticket, the judge
shall examine the notice of prosecution
and, if the notice of prosecution
contains the certificate referred to in subsection (2), the judge
shall, subject to subsection (3), convict the defendant and impose a fine
in the amount of the fixed penalty set out in the ticket.
According to section 16(2)
of Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1 The certificate on a notice of
prosecution shall be in prescribed form, shall be signed, and shall state (a)that
the person signing the certificate delivered personally to the defendant the
ticket to which the notice of prosecution corresponds, and(b)that the ticket
was in prescribed form and was completed in the same manner as the notice of
prosecution.
According
to section 16(3) of
Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1 The judge
shall not convict the defendant if (a)the judge has reason to believe that the certificate
on the notice of prosecution is inaccurate, or (b)the notice of prosecution
contains a defect and the defect cannot be cured under section 106.
According to section 106(5) of
Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1 No curing of a defect under subsection (4)
shall be permitted if (a)the defect was such as to mislead the defendant, (b)substantial
injustice would be caused to the defendant by curing the defect, and
(c)the
injustice that would be caused to the defendant by curing the defect cannot be
overcome by the granting of an adjournment.
Pursuant to According to section 106(5) - Filing an information instead of a the Notice of Prosecution would
(1) mislead the defendant (2) substantial injustice would be caused if the
court overlooks the fact that a Notice
of Prosecution was not issued at the time of
the ticket being served to Andre Murray, furthermore a Notice
of Prosecution was not Court Filed in
prescribed form according to the subject relevant Act: Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1 furthermore the notice of prosecution was never filled with the Court before the
date of the first appearance as required by section 12(1) of Provincial Offences Procedure
Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1,
consequentially (c) the injustice that would be caused to the defendant by
curing the defect cannot be overcome by the granting of an adjournment.
The
"Information" document should be withdrawn, because it is completely the wrong
form for this procedure and this matter should be dismissed in its entirety,
furthermore, this Court should not convict the defendant According to the
conditions as set out in section 16(3) of Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1.
No comments:
Post a Comment