If you choose to drive a vehicle that is not road-worthy in the winter, you find a place off-road to store it or park it. You don’t just ignore the law, especially after getting a warning from the police.
Our Criminal Code specifically allows the use of “agents” in summary conviction matters, which has been interpreted to mean non-lawyers may appear.
Heck, if that pops your circuits, back in the early days of the Northwest Territories, the senior officers of the Mounted Police were ex officio stipendiary magistrates and justices of the peace, capable of trying an information laid by junior Mounties…
Good thing they’re so dashing and incorruptible! :rolleyes:
Q: What is taxidermy’s greatest triumph?
A: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
This may be an American thing. In Oz, most minor summary work is prosecuted by police officers. They get a bit of training in the law, and all they have to do is the routine stuff. They don’t do cases where they were personally involved in the investigation.
Lawyers are more expensive than police prosecutors, and it is hard to get them to live permanently in isolated places. And we don’t generate as many of them as US law schools do. Canada and Australia are huge with relatively sparsely populated areas. If you had to wait for the monthly circuit for a prosecutor to come to town just to do speeding tickets, the system would break down.
In practice, it works pretty well.
I think your beef is with the stupid law, not the stupid prosecutors, stupid cops or stupid judge. The law was stupid, but the stupid prosecutors, stupid cops and stupid judges were just doing their lame-ass jobs.
I had a police officer write down the information illegibly enough that the judge reprimanded him for his penmanship.
The judge still made me go to traffic school to make the ticket go away.
No, it is not an American thing. Cops routinely act as prosecutors in traffic matters. And how the heck Elindil thinks the Bar could discipline a non member I can’t imagine. Sure there are statutes that would prohibit practicing law without a license but the Bar can only discipline members. If a non member does it then it is up to the state not the Bar to prosecute it.
In Ohio, at least, the state or local bar disciplinary committees can file civil complaints against non-lawyers who are engaged in the unauthorized (i.e. unlicensed) practice of law. Some of the cases go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and those found liable may be fined and/or enjoined, and even ordered to return any payments received from “clients.”
Unlike askeptic, I have never heard of any American jurisdiction in which “Cops routinely [or ever] act as prosecutors in traffic matters.” Witnesses, yes, of course. Prosecutors, never.
In my jurisdiction in Canada, the Law Society has disciplinary powers over members, but also can prosecute non-members for practising without a licence, just as Elendil’s Heir suggests. A prosecution against a non-member goes to the courts, with the Law Society conducting the prosecution.
Well, in fairness to Parliament who gave them those powers, the NWMP were the only agents of government in most of the NWT for a long time. The Lt Governor was originally located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and even when he was relocated to the NWT, government was skeletal at best. Giving the senior officers those powers was about the only option when they were the only reps of government. It ended fairly quickly, once the civil government got established and stipendiary magistrates and J.P.s were appointed throughout the NWT.
[underlining mine.]
I guess I understand your point but the quoted texts don’t really convey the same message.
As for cops prosecuting traffic matters I guess it comes down to semantics. They are really just a witness who testify in narrative and answer the judges questions they are not allowed to cross examine the defendant give opening statements or closing arguments. Are they really “Practicing Law”? No.
That’s not just a semantic matter. I would say that’s simply an officer testifying in court, but without a counsel or other agent asking him any questions in chief. If the officer can’t cross-examine the accused, that I don’t think it qualifies as prosecuting the matter.
When I say that officers can prosecute a case, I’m not saying they’re witnesses. I’m saying they’re standing at the counsel table, asking the officer who issued the ticket questions in chief, and able to cross-examine the accused, if he chooses to testify.
and I just noticed a mistake in my post # 50 - I meant to say that the NWMP were gradually replaced in that function. It didn’t happen as quickly as I may have implied in that post, but over a 20 year period.
They are first brought before the bar committee, as I understand it. Sometimes the UPL complaint goes no further than that, either when the committee finds that UPL didn’t occur, or lets the person off with a warning. Otherwise, the committee may file suit.
I agree with Northern Piper as to the witness/prosecutor distinction.
Yes, please allow me to :rolleyes: at parking your Jaguar in the street. What, the Ferarri had to be in the driveway? If you were so worried about damaging the car, it never would have been in the street to begin with.
Exactly what power does a Bar committee have to compel a non members presence?
None. A nonmember is invited but not required to attend. She’d be a fool not to go, though, unless she’s not going to fight it. More info: Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law FAQs
By way of background, I’m posting from Saskatchewan, where we know a lot about non-roadworthy vehicles that aren’t Jags or Ferrarris. There’s things like convertibles, motorcycles, and classic cars that just aren’t practical in January.
If you choose to have one of those cars (and they’re all pretty middle-class kind of vehicles :rolleyes: ), then you make sure you have a place to store it in the winter - like a garage, or a barn or quonset on a friend’s farm.
Sorry to pop your bubble about having Jeeves drive the Rolls back to the second garage from the left. :dubious:
Gonzomax was the one who was explaining how his XKE Jag wasn’t road-worthy and how he’s got two cars. If you want to go all class-conscious, you should be directing it to him, not me. 
I’m not so sure it is an American thing- I’ve heard of police officers prosecuting traffic tickets,although it’s not done in my city. Until a couple of years ago, I had a job in New York where I prosecuted parole violators although I am not an attorney- and I do mean prosecute. Negotiate pleas, issue subpoenas, question witnesses, make objections, cross-examine defense witnesses, and make a closing statement. The closing statement generally involved a recommendation that the parolee be re-incarcerated for some portion of the remaining sentence. Also in New York, most of the justices of the town and village courts are not attorneys. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if the smaller towns used police officers to prosecute traffic violations - after all, they aren’t crimes
Nothing factual to add, just an excuse to link to one of my favorite internet finds from a few years ago, dealing with a miswritten ticket New Zealand style.