I got a speeding back in the summer and decided to take it to trial. I got my trial date, its Nov. 22. I also received in the mail an affidavit from the officer that he is unable to appear at court that day for the trial and has requested a new trial date. I haven't been informed of a new trial date as yet.
The question is: Since no new date has been set, I go to court and plead "Not Guilty" and there is an excellent chance the ticket is thrown out. Am I on the right track here? Are things as good as they appear?
If you haven't been officially notified that the trial date has been changed, then the trial date remains Nov 22. If you still haven't been notified by 22 Nov, and you go and the PO doesn't turn up, you can ask for dismissal, and it should be granted.
If you receive your notification e.g Nov 21, you can argue that the notice was too short, and you're prepared, and you've lined up all your witnesses, and you're ready for trial, and adjournment would cause hardship, yada yada. If you ask for a dismissal in that case, you might get away with it.
It's (almost) certain that the court will grant the adjournment based on the police request. But until you are notified of the adjournment, (not necessarily notified of the new date) then the present date stands.
Anyway, who goes to trial to fight a speeding ticket? Simple speeding is an absolute liability offence. That means the prosecution does not have to prove any intent on your part. Simple proof (the PO's word) that you were over the speed limit is enough for the conviction. The court won't hear your argument that you didn't mean it, etc. You might have a case if the speed limit signs are the wrong size, or too high off the ground, or too far apart, etc. You might even have a case if you can prove a furniture van was obscuring the sign. Those things, if proved, establish that the speed limit did not exist, on that road at that time. You might have a case if you can show that the radar gun had not been calibrated or not checked, etc -- i.e the court cannot rely on the "proof" of the fact of speeding.
Or are you accused of stunt driving (50k over the posted speed limit)? The prosec does have to prove intent for that - so the court will listen to your reasons, excuses, etc. Mug's game, though, unless you have a really good case.