Skip to main content
Police officer using a handheld speed radar gun to monitor traffic speed.

Admissibility of Laser Manuals in Speeding Ticket Cases

There is a very important traffic court ruling that came out recently in the case of R. v. Sebastian. This was a traffic ticket trial in the Provincial Court of British Columbia. The case centred around the admissibility of page 43 of the manufacturer’s manual for the DragonEye Speed LIDAR laser device as evidence of the accuracy of a speed reading taken on January 5, 2024.

The Crown sought to admit page 43 to prove that the laser reading was accurate to within plus or minus one kilometre per hour, as stated in the manual. However, the disputant, Mr. Sebastian, argued against the admission of the manual, claiming it was hearsay and not credible or trustworthy evidence.

The court acknowledged that in traffic violation trials, Section 15.1 of the Offence Act allows for the admission of evidence that might not typically be admissible under the regular rules of evidence, provided the justice considers it relevant, credible, and trustworthy.

The court considered case law related to the admissibility of speed measurement devices, specifically Regina v. Khadikin, which dealt with radar evidence. In that case, the court found that evidence of the officer’s qualification, coupled with a description of the tests conducted on the device, was sufficient to establish the accuracy of the reading.

However, the court distinguished Khadikin from the present case, noting that Khadikin did not consider Section 15.1 of the Offence Act or the admissibility of the manufacturer’s manual.

The court also considered a case where a conviction for excessive speed was overturned because the judicial justice improperly took judicial notice that the DragonEye Speed LIDAR was accurate to within plus or minus one kilometre per hour.

In reviewing the evidence, the court noted that the officer, Constable Tan, testified that the laser device had passed all tests and that he was satisfied it was accurately measuring distances and speeds. He also confirmed that the manual was the most current version available to the RCMP.

However, the court also considered concerns raised by the accused about the age of the manual (2015) and the device (possibly manufactured in 2017 or earlier), and the lack of evidence regarding calibration since manufacture. The court expressed concern that the device might still appear to be functioning and provide readings within a plausible range even if it was not accurate to the degree stated in the manual.

Ultimately, the court ruled that page 43 of the manual and the officer’s testimony regarding the accuracy of the laser were not admissible under Section 15.1 of the Offence Act. The court found that the Crown had not provided sufficient evidence to establish the credibility and trustworthiness of the manual as proof that the laser device was accurate to within plus or minus one kilometre per hour on the date in question.

The court emphasized the importance of considering all evidence in traffic trials, including the officer’s visual estimate of speed, which can provide circumstantial support for the accuracy of the laser reading. The court was concerned that admitting the manual as conclusive proof of accuracy would negate the need to consider other evidence especially in circumstances where the visual estimate was not corroborative of the RADAR or Laser speed reading.

This case highlights the challenges in admitting manufacturer’s manuals as evidence in traffic violation trials. The court’s decision underscores the need for the Crown to provide robust evidence to demonstrate the reliability and accuracy of speed measurement devices.

If you have a traffic ticket, let us help.