Article content continued

In the 4,200-word judgment (footnotes included), O’Donnell muses that he didn’t think the case would be complicated, calling the interaction between a citizen and police, especially one captured on grainy video and posted to YouTube, the “bread and butter of provincial court.”

But that was before he knew Duncan had discovered the internet, which the accused used to once again argue the judge had no jurisdiction over him.

“Mr. Duncan provided me with an “affidavit of truth,” a rather substantial volume that appeared to me to be the result of somebody doing a Google search for terms like “jurisdiction” and the like and then cobbling them together in such a way that it makes James Joyce’s Ulysses look like an easy read,” O’Donnell writes.

O’Donnell explains that he didn’t look forward to sifting through the “palaver, nonsense and gobbledygook” presented to him.

“Sadly, when human beings are let loose with computers and internet access, their work product does not necessarily compare favourably to… monkeys with typewriters,” O’Donnell writes.

The judge then explains how relieved he was to locate a precedent-setting case from Alberta, which freed him from having to address Duncan’s mountain of arguments.

“Such arguments are a waste of the court’s time and resources, a selfish and/or unthinking act of disrespect to other litigants and deserving of no further attention, energy or comment,” O’Donnell writes.

In the end, O’Donnell acquits Duncan after finding the right-hand turn without a signal didn’t harm any other drivers and the cops had no “lawful basis” for demanding that Duncan identify himself.