Nothing to see here. In fact, it looks like a run-of-the-mill traffic stop. Certainly not a case that would attract public interest or pressure. And no child was harmed so we doubt the poorly construed nobility described above would be invoked in such a simple traffic case. After all, he’s guilty, right? As you have probably already guessed, things may not be as they appear.

You may best understand the subject of our inquiry if you imagine him first hand. So finish up your donut and pretend for a moment you were that cop. And let’s say the story went more like this: you were indeed passed by a motorcycle at a high rate of speed, but it didn’t stop. In fact, the bike accelerates and is gone in the distance and all you have is a license plate, but you have no idea who was driving the bike. No problem to a keen investigator like yourself. You simply follow-up on the plate, go to the registered address and nab your man!

But there is a problem. The plate belongs to the former owner of the bike. He sold the bike some time ago. He does, however, remember the guy he sold it to. Lucky break – great – call him up. Well, there is another problem. The purchaser says he wasn’t riding a bike that day. And that it wasn’t him. In fact, he wants nothing to do with the police and he doesn’t want to answer your questions. So there you have it. No confession, no admission, no witnesses and no evidence. You have a crime, but no rider.

Is it time to get creative? Let’s throw the book at him and see if he talks; how about a Dangerous Driving charge under the Criminal Code? Perfect! So you tell him that if he doesn’t admit to being the driver of the bike, you will charge him with the criminal offence. Bingo! He cracks and says “Fine – I was the driver of the bike.” So you keep your promise and instead of the criminal offence, you lay a mitt full of Highway Traffic Act offences including the very serious –‘Fail to Stop for Police’ (which could bring jail and a long term license suspension) along with the original Speeding ticket, and others.

You got your man. All that’s left is the paper work. So you go about the routine of preparing a brief for the prosecutor. As you reduce your investigation to writing you realize that the admission you obtained by threatening the criminal charge will more than likely be thrown out of court – sending your case back to square one without identification evidence. The Supreme Court’s requirement that the statement by the accused be given voluntarily is really getting in the way – because it wasn’t.

Details, details. Just write it up without the ugly part in the middle and you will be back on top of this chess game. So the story goes that the guy was Speeding, and then identified as the driver and released. Simple enough, right? Wrong. What happens when the guy shows up in court with a Summons in his hand that says ‘Fail to Stop for Police’? And in his other hand, your report that you wrote omitting the entire fail-to-stop investigation? That would not go over well. So you give your head a shake, prepare the report properly, and decide to let the chips fall where they may – you win some and you lose some. At least that’s what we hope you would do.

But clearly your character, much like your case, is held together by bits of bubblegum and string. So you call the guy up once again and offer to ‘look after him’ when he comes to court. And you tell him that as a reward for being forthright and ‘coming forward’ you are going to do him the favour of cancelling the most serious charge – the Fail to Stop for Police charge. In fact, you tell the guy to just throw the summons in the garbage! Do it right away so there is no confusion later! Throw the summons in the garbage, forget about it, and you even tell him, “When we get to court, I’ll try to help you out.” Uggh.

But there is a problem here that you, with all of your faculties, could never have possibly accounted for. And that is that the guy you are messing with is a lot smarter than you. (And he hired some really sharp paralegals too).

You see, he saved the summons you told him to discard and recorded every word you said over the telephone.

Checkmate.

(Voices in this audio excerpt have been digitally masked or replaced).

Before inviting you to comment or tell us what you think, we will leave you with a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada from its landmark decision in R. v. Stinchcombe:

“The fruits of a police investigation which are in the possession of counsel for the Crown are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction, but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done. The defence, on the other hand, has no obligation to assist the prosecution and is entitled to assume a purely adversarial role towards the prosecution. There is a general duty on the part of the Crown to disclose all material it proposes to use at trial on a charge of an indictable offence and especially, all evidence which may assist the accused even if the Crown does not propose to adduce it..”