Shrek (or anyone else who has input...)ShrekTek wrote: ↑Nov 8th, 2017 11:58 amMost likely you can beat the bigger ticket at trial if the early resolution meeting is not successful (which probably wont be). If you both testify the same thing, then "Failure to supply driver with inspection schedule" should definitely be dropped. Unfortunately the "failure to surrender inspection report" is simply a ticket that means when the officer asked for something, you did not give it to them ... and this is exactly what happened. So for this ticket, there is still a chance to beat it IF the JP believes your testimonies and feels that the miscommunication was an issue. But the reality is, regardless of language barrier, this ticket may not be beatable.
Anyways at early resolution make sure to take copies of everything and tell the story like you did above.
So Early Resolution was useless. The prosecutor didn't even understand what the "Inspection schedule" was - he made the same mistake that my driver made, which was to confuse "inspection schedule", the document that was supposed to be surrendered, with the actual "driving schedule" and/or "inspection report". Because of this, he did not lower any charges and asked us to proceed to trial. If even he, an agent of the courts, is unaware of the details, would this not be unresonable to expect the driver to understand what the police officer was asking for?
Furthermore, the ticket the officer issued said "Did commit the offence of: Fail to surrender inspection schedule contrary to HTA 107(7)". However, On the notice of Early Resolution Meeting, and on the Trial Notice itself, it says "regarding the offence of FL Surrender Inspection Report".
These are two entirely different charges. Is this a way for us to get out of this second charge? The driver did perhaps fail to surrender the inspection SCHEDULE, because of his misunderstanding of what the officer was asking. But he DID in fact surrender the inspection report to the officer. So I suppose one question is, what takes precedence - the officer's ticket, or the actual trial notice, because they are referring to two different charges? How should I go about arguing this in court? Should the driver admit to having surrendered the inspection report (which he did), and not surrendering the inspection schedule (which he did), even though it was in the vehicle at the time?
If the trial notice charges us with one offence (failure to surrender inspection report), and we prove beyond reasonable doubt that that particular offence was not committed, by admitting that he did forget to surrender the schedule, but not the report, can they just turn around and charge us with the "original" offense of "failure to surrender inspection schedule"?
I have the trial tomorrow morning, sorry for the short notice, but any input would be really helpful!