A self-represented appellant appealed his conviction for speeding (107 km/h in a 70 km/h zone) after two trials and an unsuccessful appeal to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on two substantive grounds: (1) the trial justice misapplied the W.(D.) principles by choosing between competing versions of evidence rather than determining whether guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) the trial justice erred in restricting the appellant's cross-examination of the officer on prior inconsistent statements without requiring a transcript.
The court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial, noting that the prosecutor should consider whether subjecting the appellant to a third trial on a speeding ticket serves the interests of justice.
