Anger Management. Trial Outcome. Peace Bond. Peace Bond Abuse. Criminal Record. Criminal Record FAQs. Cherry Beach Express. Lawyer Referral. US Waiver Kit. Pardon Record Suspension Kit. Legal Aid. Criminal Offences. Rank of Charge. What to Expect. Items you would typically find in disclosure include: Police officers' notes Statements from officers Statements from witnesses Videos or audio recordings Pictures.
First Appearance And Obtaining Disclosure. What the crown will be looking for in terms of sentence if there is an early guilty plea What they would be looking for if the matter goes to trial. Crown Resolution Meeting. There are basically ten steps in the trial process. If you insist on your right to a trial and are convicted, you will almost certainly get a stiffer sentence than had you just pleaded guilty before trial.
You are penalized for asserting your constitutional rights. Not fair, not right, but that is the way the courts and the crowns operate. The Crowns are not interested in justice. They want as many convictions on their record as they can get.
You are just another notch in their belt. Crown Disposition Statement:. The accused is entitled to know to full case against the accused once the Crown closes its case. At the end of the Crown's case the defence will be permitted to either make a motion for directed verdict, elect to call evidence, or elect not to call evidence.
If the accused elects to call evidence, an opening statement may be given to introduce the trier-of-fact to the defence's case. If the accused does not call evidence, there will be no need for an opening statement. The case will proceed to closing statements beginning with the Crown's submissions. The order in which the accused are to be asked for their election on whether to call evidence after the closing of the Crown's case will depend on the tradition for the particular jurisdiction.
An accused can apply to the trial judge to have the convention changed. Under s. There is no requirement of a formal adjournment process to create breaks in the proceeding. The Court has a residual discretionary power to call witnesses to testify where it is necessary for the discovery of truth or in the interests of justice. The Code is divided into Parts that outline different rules and procedures depending on the level of court and the type of criminal charge.
C , s. Section requires that when both the accused and prosecutor appear for a summary conviction trial the judge must hold the trial:. The provincial court, superior court and court of appeal are all "courts of record".
The records of a "court of record" is presumed to be accurate without the need for an inquiry. Consequently, recordings of the clerk of the court are presumed accurate. C, s. A provincial court must receive evidence in the same manner described in for a preliminary inquiry judge:. From Criminal Law Notebook. In Canada, England and the US, an adversarial or accusatorial system is used, in contrast to the inquisitorial system practised in France and other European countries.
Canadian procedural rules are therefore designed to support the adversarial system in which the proceeding is a dispute between the state or Crown and the defendant or accused.
As has been indicated above, the parties appear before an independent arbitrator, either a judge or jury, who must determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. Both parties are responsible for gathering and presenting evidence. The arbitrator is expected to play a relatively passive role, maintaining an impression of independence and impartiality, and ensuring that the rules of procedure are observed.
In contrast, the inquisitorial system is a judicial inquiry. The responsibility for investigating and bringing out the facts rests upon the decision maker. The parties' roles are restricted to ensuring that their interests are properly represented during the trial. The adversarial system and the procedural rules which comprise that system unquestionably favour the accused to a greater degree than the inquisitorial system.
The Crown generally has the burden of adducing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, who is almost always entitled to a presumption of innocence until the Crown has proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to give evidence and the court must acquit him if the Crown has not proven its case. If the accused elects not to give evidence or call witnesses, he through his counsel is still actively involved in the trial through cross-examinations of crown witnesses.
This is very different from the inquisitorial system in which the accused is generally subjected, without election on his part, to extensive questioning but is otherwise inactive in the process. Nevertheless, certain principles are common to both systems, including the requirements that trials be public, that determinations be based on evidence presented in open court, and that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
However, even though both systems share these fundamental principles, there are differences in the manner in which they are applied.
The Constitution Act of gave the federal government jurisdiction to legislate with respect to "the criminal law, except the constitution of Courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters. Also, related statutes such as the Narcotic Control Act include their own specific procedures.
One must remember that much criminal procedure is established by the Courts, as the various legislative provisions dealing with procedure often require interpretation. A very important development in Canadian criminal procedure as in most, if not all, areas of criminal law is the inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Constitution Act of Although the Charter does not set out any procedural rules, it does provide many of the principles that procedural rules must follow.
Legislative procedures, such as the reverse onus requirement in which the accused must prove his innocence under the "possession for the purpose of trafficking" offence found in the Narcotic Control Act, have been struck down as contrary to the Charter. Judicial interpretation of procedural rules has also been affected by the Charter.
For instance, the police now have to be much more careful, when questioning suspects, to ensure that they are aware that they have the right to consult with a lawyer without delay as is guaranteed by s10 B of the Charter.
If the police do not allow an accused to exercise this right, then there is an excellent chance that any confession or other evidence subsequently obtained will be declared inadmissable. Formerly, a violation of this nature did not generally result in the exclusion of evidence.
0コメント