Fail to Report Accident / Fail to Remain at Accident
Fail to Remain at the Scene of an Accident and Fail to Report Accident are charges that are frequently laid together. In most cases, the police investigating these types of charges attempt to obtain a confession or statement from the accused driver. If you are being investigated for Fail to Remain or Fail to Report we strongly recommend that you contact us before you speak with the police. Apart from the severe penalties available upon conviction, these offences will have an overwhelming impact on car insurance rates.
Fail to Report / Remain Investigation
Let’s have a look at a typical police tactic in a Fail to Remain / Fail to Report investigation. Frequently, the only evidence the police need to complete their case is reliable information that the accused was the driver at the time of the accident. Have a look at the image. This is a page right out of a Fail to Remain investigation by the Toronto police. Notice that the accused is asked to admit to being the driver PRIOR to the officer cautioning the accused that what he says may be used against him in court? This is just one of many dirty tricks employed by investigators. This is why we cannot stress enough that you contact us before you speak to the police. If you have been charged with Fail to Remain or Fail to Report, get Mavericks experience working for you!
How Does the Guilty Party Plead?
When an elderly Toronto resident was ordered by the local Justice of the Peace to personally attend in Kingston, Ontario to present herself in traffic court we were not impressed. We defended her for free after that slight. And after multiple return appearances to Kingston, we had Mrs. Goodman vindicated.
The Crown in every case must prove that the accused was the one who committed the offence. Law enforcement methods used in obtaining such evidence have been the subject of much judicial scrutiny in recent years.
A traditional ‘line up’ or ‘photo line up’ can be reliable but if the procedure used is suggestive the identification evidence will be irreversibly tainted and should be ignored. But what about a one-man line up? Sound absurd?
The Crown in this case had no evidence that Mrs. Goodman was the one who had been driving the car when the accident happened.
To get around the problem, a highly suggestive and dangerous identification procedure was resorted to by the Crown (and accepted by the Court) which led to a conviction. In the midst of the trial, the witness was asked to point out the driver from the accident for the very first time. This ‘in court’ or ‘in dock’ identification technique is unsafe given that the witness has only one person to choose from – and that person has already been charged. The witness will be aware that the police and the prosecutor are confident that the defendant was the one who committed the offence.
We argued that the failure of the authorities to properly test the witness’s ability to recall through non-suggestive methods prior to trial rendered the evidence of identification unreliable. On appeal the Provincial Court Judge agreed; the defendant was acquitted.