The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding 75 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometres per hour zone.
The trial judge rejected evidence from the police officer regarding the margin of error (plus or minus two kilometres per hour) of the laser speed measuring device, ruling that such evidence constituted hearsay and that the officer was not qualified as an expert.
The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in rejecting this evidence, as the manufacturer's manual information was part of the officer's training and did not require expert qualification.
However, the appeal court upheld the conviction on the basis that the prosecutor need only establish that speeding occurred, with the excess speed being relevant only to penalty.
The sentence was varied to reflect the lower excess speed of 23 kilometres per hour rather than 25 kilometres per hour.
