Accused in Court: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(139 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Fr:Accusé_devant_le_tribunal]]
{{Currency2|January|2023}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderTrials}}
{{HeaderTrials}}
==General Principles==
==General Principles==
<!-- -->
Generally, an accused is expected to be present during the proceedings against him. He must be present for his trial, but may have representation appear on his behalf for non-trial matters.<ref>
[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec650 s. 650(1)] requires attendance at trial<br>
[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec650.01 s. 650.01] allows counsel to appear on accused behalf for non-trial matters<br>
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
==Accused and Offender Defined==
{{Seealso|Criminal Code and Related Definitions}}
{{quotation|
2.<br>...<br>
“offender” means a person who has been determined by a court to be guilty of an offence, whether on acceptance of a plea of guilty or on a finding of guilt;
<br>...<br>
}}


{{quotation|
==Right to Self-Representation==
'''Definitions'''<br>
* [[Right to Self-Representation]]
493. In this Part,
 
<br>...<br>
==Accused's Obligation to be Present in Court==
“accused” includes
* [[Obligation of Accused to be Present During Proceedings]]
:(a) a person to whom a peace officer has issued an appearance notice under section 496, and
 
:(b) a person arrested for a criminal offence;
==Video-link Appearance==
{{seealso|Remote Attendance in Court}}
 
See also: [[Procuring the Attendance of a Prisoner]]


...<br>
==Accused Absconding==
'''Definitions'''<br>
672.1 (1) In this Part,
<br>...<br>
“accused” includes a defendant in summary conviction proceedings and an accused in respect of whom a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder has been rendered;
<br>
...<br>
'''Definitions'''<br>
716. In this Part,
<br>...<br>
“accused” includes a defendant;<br>
...<Br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 716; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 154; 1995, c. 22, s. 6; 1999, c. 5, s. 29(E).
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec493 CCC]
}}


Where the accused is required to attend an appearance for a summary offence and does not, the court may issue a warrant for their arrest.<ref>
s. 800(2)</ref>


{{Reflist|2}}
===From Preliminary Inquiry or Trial===
{{quotation3|
; Accused absconding during trial
475 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an accused, whether or not he is charged jointly with another, absconds during the course of his trial,
:(a) he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present at his trial, and
:(b) the court may
::(i) continue the trial and proceed to a judgment or verdict and, if it finds the accused guilty, impose a sentence on him in his absence, or
::(ii) if a warrant in Form 7 {{AnnSec|Form 7}} is issued for the arrest of the accused, adjourn the trial to await his appearance,


==Right to Representation==
but where the trial is adjourned pursuant to subparagraph (b)(ii), the court may, at any time, continue the trial if it is satisfied that it is no longer in the interests of justice to await the appearance of the accused.
{{seealso|Representation at Trial}}
<br>
; Adverse inference
(2) Where a court continues a trial pursuant to subsection (1) {{AnnSec4|475(1)}}, it may draw an inference adverse to the accused from the fact that he has absconded.
<br>
; Accused not entitled to re-opening
(3) Where an accused reappears at his trial that is continuing pursuant to subsection (1) {{AnnSec4|475(1)}}, he is not entitled to have any part of the proceedings that was conducted in his absence re-opened unless the court is satisfied that because of exceptional circumstances it is in the interests of justice to re-open the proceedings.
<br>
; Counsel for accused may continue to act
(4) Where an accused has absconded during the course of his trial and the court continues the trial, counsel for the accused is not thereby deprived of any authority he may have to continue to act for the accused in the proceedings.
<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 475;
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 185(F), c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F).
{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|475}}
|{{NoteUp|475|1|2|3|4}}
|{{terms-
|"Act" (s. 2)
}}
}}


A judge must make adequate inquiries into whether the accused wants to be represented by counsel.<ref>
For the purpose of s. 475, "abscond" refers to the avoidance of trial "for the purpose of impeding or frustrating" the trial. Merely failure to attend is not enough.<ref>
R v Boone, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4d4 2003 MBQB 292] (CanLII){{perMBQB|Darichuk J}}{{at|15}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Taylor|28c6d|2010 BCCA 58 (CanLII)|252 CCC (3d) 197}}{{perBCCA|Levine JA}}
R v Hardy [http://canlii.ca/t/28nhl 1990 CanLII 5615] (AB QB), (1990), 62 CCC (3d) 28 (Alta. Q.B.){{perABQB|Mcdonald J}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
He should be "thorough" in his explanation of the importance of exercising the right.<ref>
The court must be satisfied that the accused "absented himself... for the purpose of impeding or frustrating the trial, or with the intention of avoiding its consequences."<ref>
Boone at para 16<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mitsakis|js24b|2022 ONSC 5390 (CanLII)|OJ No 4224}}{{perONSC|Schreck J}}{{atL|js24b|14}}<br>
R v H.(B.C.), (1990), 58 CCC (3d) 16, [http://canlii.ca/t/gcd0q 1990 CanLII 10964] (MB CA){{perMBCA|Twaddle JA}}, at 22<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Garofoli|22kn2|1988 CanLII 3270 (ON CA)|41 CCC (3d) 97}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}} at p. 141
</ref>
</ref>
Failure to do so may infringe the accused's Charter rights under s. 7.<ref>
 
R v Boone{{supra}}, at para 15<br>
The court is permitted to proceed to sentencing in the absence of the accused, where there is sufficient information to do so.<ref>
see also Hardy{{supra}}<br>
{{supra1|Mitsakis}} at para 19<Br>
{{CanLIIRT|Singh|gg9l7|2015 ONSC 904 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Pomerance J}}{{atsL|gg9l7|9| to 10}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
The finding that the accused absconds is not permitted to be used as an aggravating factor to sentencing but can remove mitigating factors.<Ref>
{{ibid1|Singh}}{{atL|gg9l7|19}}
</ref>


==Accused's Presence at Court Other Than For Trial==
Section 475 does not violate section 7<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Czuczman|g18bh|1986 CanLII 2714 (ON CA)|26 CCC (3d) 43}}{{perONCA|Brooke JA}}
</ref> or section 11(d) right to a fair trial.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Tzimopoulos|1p70d|1986 CanLII 152 (ON CA)|29 CCC (3d) 304}}{{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>


On a summary conviction matter, the accused may appear in person or by counsel or agent.<ref>
s. 800(2)</ref>


Section 650 states:
{{quotation2|
{{quotation|
; Absconding Accused
'''Accused to be present'''<br>
; Accused absconding during inquiry
650 (1) Subject to subsections (1.1) to (2) and section 650.01, an accused, other than an organization, shall be present in court during the whole of his or her trial.
544 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an accused, whether or not he is charged jointly with another, absconds during the course of a preliminary inquiry into an offence with which he is charged,
<br>
:(a) he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present at the inquiry, and
'''Video links'''<Br>
:(b) the justice
(1.1) Where the court so orders, and where the prosecutor and the accused so agree, the accused may appear by counsel or by closed-circuit television or any other means that allow the court and the accused to engage in simultaneous visual and oral communication, for any part of the trial other than a part in which the evidence of a witness is taken.
::(i) may continue the inquiry and, when all the evidence has been taken, shall dispose of the inquiry in accordance with section 548 {{AnnSec5|548}}, or
<br>
::(ii) if a warrant is issued for the arrest of the accused, may adjourn the inquiry to await his appearance,
'''Video links'''<br>
but where the inquiry is adjourned pursuant to subparagraph (b)(ii), the justice may continue it at any time pursuant to subparagraph (b)(i) if he is satisfied that it would no longer be in the interests of justice to await the appearance of the accused.
(1.2) Where the court so orders, an accused who is confined in prison may appear by closed-circuit television or any other means that allow the court and the accused to engage in simultaneous visual and oral communication, for any part of the trial other than a part in which the evidence of a witness is taken, if the accused is given the opportunity to communicate privately with counsel, in a case in which the accused is represented by counsel.
<bR>
'''Exceptions'''<Br>
(2) The court may
:(a) cause the accused to be removed and to be kept out of court, where he misconducts himself by interrupting the proceedings so that to continue the proceedings in his presence would not be feasible;
:(b) permit the accused to be out of court during the whole or any part of his trial on such conditions as the court considers proper; or
:(c) cause the accused to be removed and to be kept out of court during the trial of an issue as to whether the accused is unfit to stand trial, where it is satisfied that failure to do so might have an adverse effect on the mental condition of the accused.


'''To make defence'''<br>
; Adverse inference
(3) An accused is entitled, after the close of the case for the prosecution, to make full answer and defence personally or by counsel.
(2) Where the justice continues a preliminary inquiry pursuant to subsection (1) {{AnnSec5|544(1)}}, he may draw an inference adverse to the accused from the fact that he has absconded.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 650; 1991, c. 43, s. 9; 1994, c. 44, s. 61; 1997, c. 18, s. 77; 2002, c. 13, s. 60; 2003, c. 21, s. 12.
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec650 CCC]
}}


{{Reflist|2}}
; Accused not entitled to re-opening
(3) Where an accused reappears at a preliminary inquiry that is continuing pursuant to subsection (1) {{AnnSec5|544(1)}}, he is not entitled to have any part of the proceedings that was conducted in his absence re-opened unless the justice is satisfied that because of exceptional circumstances it is in the interests of justice to re-open the inquiry.


===Video-link Appearance===
; Counsel for accused may continue to act
(4) Where an accused has absconded during the course of a preliminary inquiry and the justice continues the inquiry, counsel for the accused is not thereby deprived of any authority he may have to continue to act for the accused in the proceedings.


{{quotation|
; Accused calling witnesses
800.<br>...<br>
(5) If, at the conclusion of the evidence on the part of the prosecution at a preliminary inquiry that has been continued under subsection (1) {{AnnSec5|544(1)}}, the accused is absent but their counsel is present, the counsel shall be given an opportunity to call witnesses on behalf of the accused, subject to subsection 537(1.01) {{AnnSec5|537(1.01)}}, and subsection 541(5) {{AnnSec5|541(5)}} applies with any modifications that the circumstances require.
'''Video links'''<br>
(2.1) Where the court so orders and the defendant agrees, the defendant who is confined in prison may appear by closed-circuit television or any other means that allow the court and the defendant to engage in simultaneous visual and oral communication, if the defendant is given the opportunity to communicate privately with counsel, in a case in which the defendant is represented by counsel.
<br>...<br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 800; 1997, c. 18, s. 111; 2003, c. 21, s. 21.
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec800 CCC]
}}


{{quotation|
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 544;
'''Condition for remote appearance'''<br>
{{LegHistory90s|1994, c. 44}}, s. 55;
848. Despite anything in this Act, if an accused who is in prison does not have access to legal advice during the proceedings, the court shall, before permitting the accused to appear by a means of communication that allows the court and the accused to engage in simultaneous visual and oral communication, be satisfied that the accused will be able to understand the proceedings and that any decisions made by the accused during the proceedings will be voluntary.
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 246.
<Br>
{{Annotation}}
2002, c. 13, s. 84.
|{{CCCSec2|544}}
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec848 CCC]
|{{NoteUp|544|1|2|3|4|5}}
}}
}}


See also: [[Procuring the Attendance of a Prisoner]]
{{reflist|2}}


{{reflist|2}}
==Deceased Accused==
Generally, a prosecution will terminate by the Court declaring the matter "abated" where the accused dies regardless of the stage of proceedings.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Ssenyonga|gbr1w|1993 CanLII 14680 (ON SC)|[1993] OJ No 3273 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.))}}{{perONSC|McDermid J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Neufeldt|1lv6p|2005 ABPC 163 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Norheim J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Douglas|1hq80|2004 BCPC 279 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Lenaghan J}}<br>
</ref>


==Accused's Presence at Trial==
There are some exceptions permitted for pending appellate matters.<Ref>
Under [http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec650 s. 650(1)] (indictable matters) and 800(2) (summary matters), the accused must be present for the whole of their trial.
{{CanLIIRx|MacLellan|hx2m9|2019 NSCA 2 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}} (2:1)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Jetté|1mvxs|1999 CanLII 13411 (QC CA)| , 141 CCC (3d) 52; [1999] J.Q. No 4641}}{{perQCCA|Fish JA}} (3:0) - first case to find discretion to continue<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|1glp1|2004 SCC 14 (CanLII)|[2004] 1 SCR 385}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}} (7:0)<br>
cf. {{CanLIIR-N|Netter|, [1975] BCJ No 1191 (CA)}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Collins v The Queen|g1887|1973 CanLII 655 (ON CA)|[1973] 3 OR 672 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Cadeddu v The Queen|g1cql|1983 CanLII 1763 (ON CA)| (1983), 41 OR (2d) 481 (CA), 3 CCC (3d) 112}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Hay|, [1994] OJ No 2598 (CA)}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Lewis|1dzd1|1997 CanLII 3584 (BC CA)| (1997), 153 DLR (4th) 184 (BCCA)}}<br>
</ref>


The meaning of "trial" is broad and can refer to any proceedings that form part of the "trial process for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused" as well as penalty.<ref>
The Court of Appeal maintains jurisdiction over an appeal where the accused has died. It is in their discretion to either declare the appeal "abated" or consider it on its merits.<Ref>
R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/fvx90 2013 ONCA 64] (CanLII){{perONCA|Rouleau JA}} at para 15 : cites many examples
{{supra1|Jette}}{{atL|1mvxs|59}}
</ref>The key factor is whether the proceedings involved the accused's "vital interests."<ref>
{{supra1|Cadeddu}}{{atps|118-119}}
Sinclair{{ibid}} at para 15<br>
</ref>
R v Vezina; R v Cote, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mfdq 1986 CanLII 93] (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 2{{perSCC|Lamer J}}<br>
Discretion should be exercised where the court is satisfied that:<Ref>
{{supra1|Jette}}{{atL|1mvxs|60}}
</ref>
</ref>
# there are serious grounds of appeal ''and'' the verdict being appealed carries significant consequences for the party seeking to continue the appeal; or
# for any reason where it is in the interests of justice to do so.


In-chambers discussions without the accused on certain issues of jury selection is preliminary in nature and so does not engage the accused's "vital interests".<ref>
The "interests of justice" component will be the predominant consideration and should subsume the other elements.<ref>
Sinclair{{supra}} at para 17<br>
{{supra1|Smith}}{{atsL|1glp1|41| and 42}}
R v Dunbar, (1982), 68 CCC (2d) 13, [http://canlii.ca/t/gb3gd 1982 CanLII 3324] (ON CA){{perONCA|Martin JA}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Under s.650(1.1) and (1.2), the court may order that the accused appear by way of video link where all the parties agree. This can include parts of the trial where evidence is not being taken so long as there is a means to have defence counsel consult with their client.
The "interests of justice" test requires consideration of "all relevant circumstances."<ref>
{{supra1|Smith}}{{atL|1glp1|46}}
</ref>


The court may exclude the accused from their trial under s.650(2) for three situations: 1) where the accused "misconducts himself by interrupting the proceedings" so much so that it would be infeasible to continue; 2) where the court finds it "proper"; or 3) where the accused's presence may have an adverse effect on the accused's mental health on a hearing for fitness.
The "overwhelming number" of appeals where the accused dies should result in abatement.<ref>
{{supra1|Smith}}{{atL|1glp1|46}}<br>
{{supra1|Cadeddu}}{{atp|114}}<br>
</ref>


The judge may not interview jurors outside of the presence of the accused.<Ref>
"Scarce judicial resources" should rarely be a "disqualifying consideration."<ref>
Vezina{{supra}}<br>
{{supra1|Smith}}{{atL|1glp1|47}}
R v Fenton, [http://canlii.ca/t/23m1j 1984 CanLII 633] (BC CA), (1984), 11 CCC (3d) 109{{perBCCA|Taggart JA}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Discussion in chambers regarding the credibility of witnesses by the trial judge in absence of accused can violate s. 650(1) right to be present.<ref>
Fresh evidence leading to factual innocence may be sufficient to be in the interests of justice.<ref>
R v James [http://canlii.ca/t/23f8n 2009 ONCA 366] (CanLII){{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}} <br>
e.g. see {{Supra1|Jette}}
</ref>
</ref>


The judge talking with the jury constables and reporter after trial when she heard that members of jury were pressured in their verdict.<ref>
; Factors
R v Phillips, [http://canlii.ca/t/219zk 2008 ONCA 726] (CanLII){{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}
The court should consider to varying degrees the following non-exhaustive list of factors:<Ref>
{{supra1|Smith}}{{atL|1glp1|51}}
</ref>
</ref>
# whether the appeal will proceed in a proper adversarial context;
# the strength of the grounds of the appeal;
# whether there are special circumstances that transcend the death of the individual appellant/respondent, including:
## a legal issue of general public importance, particularly if it is otherwise evasive of appellate review;
## a systemic issue related to the administration of justice;
## collateral consequences to the family of the deceased or to other interested persons or to the public;
# whether the nature of the order which could be made by the appellate court justifies the expenditure of limited judicial (or court) resources to resolve a moot appeal;
# whether continuing the appeal would go beyond the judicial function of resolving concrete disputes and involve the court in free-standing, legislative-type pronouncements more properly left to the legislature itself.


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Right to Face Accusers==
 
==Special Issues of Accused Appearances==
 
===Right to Face Accusers===
The "right to face one's accusers is not in this day and age to be taken in the literal sense...it is simply the right of an accused to be present in court, to hear the case against him and to make answer and defence to it."<ref>
The "right to face one's accusers is not in this day and age to be taken in the literal sense...it is simply the right of an accused to be present in court, to hear the case against him and to make answer and defence to it."<ref>
R v R(ME) (1989), 49 CCC (3d) 475 (NSCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gb5qn 1989 CanLII 7212] (NS CA){{perNSCA|Macdonald JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|R(ME)|gb5qn|1989 CanLII 7212 (NS CA)|49 CCC (3d) 475}}{{perNSCA|Macdonald JA}}<br>
R v JZS, [http://canlii.ca/t/214pf 2008 BCCA 401] (CanLII){{perBCCA|D Smith J}}, at para 34<br>
{{CanLIIRP|JZS|214pf|2008 BCCA 401 (CanLII)|238 CCC (3d) 522}}{{perBCCA|D Smith J}}{{atL|214pf|34}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


This is a qualified right and can be limited by the availability of [[Testimonial Evidence#Testimonial Aids|witness screens]], [[Testimonial Evidence#Testimonial Aids|closed-circuit video testimony]], [[Testimonial Evidence#Testimonial Aids|video link testimony]], and other statutory and common law protections of witnesses.
This is a qualified right and can be limited by the availability of [[Witness Screen and Closed-Circuit Video Testimony#Testimonial Aids|witness screens]], [[Witness Screen and Closed-Circuit Video Testimony#Testimonial Aids|closed-circuit video testimony]], [[Witness Screen and Closed-Circuit Video Testimony#Testimonial Aids|video link testimony]], and other statutory and common law protections of witnesses.


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Use of Restraints in Court==
===Use of Restraints in Court===
There is a presumption that the accused should not be in restraints while in court.<ref>
There is a presumption that the accused should not be in restraints while in court.<ref>
R v McNeill, [http://canlii.ca/t/6hwl 1996 CanLII 812] (ON CA){{perONCA|Morden ACJ}}</ref> The crown Bears the burden to establish that the use of restraint is reasonable.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|McNeill|6hwl|1996 CanLII 812 (ON CA)|108 CCC (3d) 364}}{{perONCA|Morden ACJ}}</ref>
R v Wills, [http://canlii.ca/t/1pfmc 2006 CanLII 31909] (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 3662 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Fuerst J}} at para 45
The crown Bears the burden to establish that the use of restraint is reasonable.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wills|1pfmc|2006 CanLII 31909 (ON SC)|[2006] OJ No 3662 (SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Fuerst J}}{{atL|1pfmc|45}}
</ref>
</ref>


{{Reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|2}}


==Sitting Position of Accused==
===Sitting Position of Accused===
* [[Sitting Position of the Accused at Trial]]
* [[Sitting Position of the Accused at Trial]]


==Accused Absconding==
===Accused and Offender Defined===
{{Seealso|Definitions of Parties, Persons, Places and Organizations}}


Where the accused is required to attend an appearance for a summary offence and does not, the court may issue a warrant for their arrest.<ref>
===Right to Representation===
s. 800(2)</ref>
{{seealso|Representation at Trial}}


===From Preliminary Inquiry or Trial===
A judge must make adequate inquiries into whether the accused wants to be represented by counsel.<ref>
{{quotation|
{{CanLIIRP|Boone|1g4d4|2003 MBQB 292 (CanLII)|179 Man R (2d) 227}}{{perMBQB|Darichuk J}}{{atL|1g4d4|15}}<br>
'''Accused absconding during trial'''<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hardy|28nhl|1990 CanLII 5615 (AB QB)|62 CCC (3d) 28}}{{perABQB|Mcdonald J}}<br>
475. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an accused, whether or not he is charged jointly with another, absconds during the course of his trial,
:(a) he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present at his trial, and
:(b) the court may
::(i) continue the trial and proceed to a judgment or verdict and, if it finds the accused guilty, impose a sentence on him in his absence, or
::(ii) if a warrant in Form 7 is issued for the arrest of the accused, adjourn the trial to await his appearance,
 
but where the trial is adjourned pursuant to subparagraph (b)(ii), the court may, at any time, continue the trial if it is satisfied that it is no longer in the interests of justice to await the appearance of the accused.
<br>
'''Adverse inference'''<br>
(2) Where a court continues a trial pursuant to subsection (1), it may draw an inference adverse to the accused from the fact that he has absconded.
<br>
'''Accused not entitled to re-opening'''<br>
(3) Where an accused reappears at his trial that is continuing pursuant to subsection (1), he is not entitled to have any part of the proceedings that was conducted in his absence re-opened unless the court is satisfied that because of exceptional circumstances it is in the interests of justice to re-open the proceedings.
<br>
'''Counsel for accused may continue to act'''<br>
(4) Where an accused has absconded during the course of his trial and the court continues the trial, counsel for the accused is not thereby deprived of any authority he may have to continue to act for the accused in the proceedings.
<br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 475; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F), c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F).
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec475 CCC]
}}
 
For the purpose of s. 475, "abscond" refers to the avoidance of trial "for the purpose of impeding or frustrating" the trial. Merely failure to attend is not enough.<ref>
R v Taylor, [http://canlii.ca/t/28c6d 2010 BCCA 58] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Levine JA}}
</ref>
</ref>
 
He should be "thorough" in his explanation of the importance of exercising the right.<ref>
Section 475 does not violate section 7<ref>
{{supra1|Boone}}{{atL|1g4d4|16}}<br>
Regina v Czuczman, [http://canlii.ca/t/g18bh 1986 CanLII 2714] (ON CA){{perONCA|Brooke JA}}
{{CanLIIRP|H(BC)|gcd0q|1990 CanLII 10964 (MB CA)|58 CCC (3d) 16}}{{perMBCA|Twaddle JA}}, at 22<br>
</ref> or section 11(d) right to a fair trial.<ref>
R v Tzimopoulos, [http://canlii.ca/t/1p70d 1986 CanLII 152] (ON CA){{TheCourt}}
</ref>
</ref>
 
Failure to do so may infringe the accused's Charter rights under s. 7.<ref>
Merely failing to attend for a trial continuation and the withdraw of defence counsel does not permit a finding that the accused "absconded" within the meaning of s. 475.<ref>
{{supra1|Boone}}{{atL|1g4d4 |15}}<br>
Taylor{{supra}}
see also {{supra1|Hardy}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
{{quotation|
'''Accused absconding during inquiry'''<br>
544. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an accused, whether or not he is charged jointly with another, absconds during the course of a preliminary inquiry into an offence with which he is charged,
:(a) he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present at the inquiry, and
:(b) the justice
::(i) may continue the inquiry and, when all the evidence has been taken, shall dispose of the inquiry in accordance with section 548, or
::(ii) if a warrant is issued for the arrest of the accused, may adjourn the inquiry to await his appearance,
but where the inquiry is adjourned pursuant to subparagraph (b)(ii), the justice may continue it at any time pursuant to subparagraph (b)(i) if he is satisfied that it would no longer be in the interests of justice to await the appearance of the accused.
<br>
'''Adverse inference'''<br>
(2) Where the justice continues a preliminary inquiry pursuant to subsection (1), he may draw an inference adverse to the accused from the fact that he has absconded.
<br>
'''Accused not entitled to re-opening'''<br>
(3) Where an accused reappears at a preliminary inquiry that is continuing pursuant to subsection (1), he is not entitled to have any part of the proceedings that was conducted in his absence re-opened unless the justice is satisfied that because of exceptional circumstances it is in the interests of justice to re-open the inquiry.
<br>
'''Counsel for accused may continue to act'''<br>
(4) Where an accused has absconded during the course of a preliminary inquiry and the justice continues the inquiry, counsel for the accused is not thereby deprived of any authority he may have to continue to act for the accused in the proceedings.
<br>
'''Accused calling witnesses'''<br>
(5) Where, at the conclusion of the evidence on the part of the prosecution at a preliminary inquiry that has been continued pursuant to subsection (1), the accused is absent but counsel for the accused is present, he or she shall be given an opportunity to call witnesses on behalf of the accused and subsection 541(5) applies with such modifications as the circumstances require.
<br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 544; 1994, c. 44, s. 55.
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec544 CCC]
}}


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Organizations as Accused==
===Organizations as Accused===


An accused who is an organization must appear by counsel or agent.<ref>
An accused who is an organization must appear by counsel or agent.<ref>
s. 800(3)</ref>
s. 800(3)</ref>
Failure of counsel or agent to attend permits the court to order an ex parte trial.<Ref>
Failure of counsel or agent to attend permits the court to order an ex parte trial.<ref>
S. 800(3)</ref>
S. 800(3)</ref>


Line 251: Line 228:


==See Also==
==See Also==
*[[Role of Trial Judge]]
'''Other Parties'''
* [[Representation at Trial]]
* [[Role of the Defence Counsel]]
* [[Role of the Trial Judge]]  
* [[Role of the Victim and Third Parties]]
* [[Role of Law Enforcement]]
* [[Role of the Crown]]
* [[Role of the Crown]]
* [[Role of the Victim and Third Parties]]

Latest revision as of 12:41, 22 August 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2023. (Rev. # 96216)

General Principles

Right to Self-Representation

Accused's Obligation to be Present in Court

Video-link Appearance

See also: Remote Attendance in Court

See also: Procuring the Attendance of a Prisoner

Accused Absconding

Where the accused is required to attend an appearance for a summary offence and does not, the court may issue a warrant for their arrest.[1]

From Preliminary Inquiry or Trial

Accused absconding during trial

475 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an accused, whether or not he is charged jointly with another, absconds during the course of his trial,

(a) he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present at his trial, and
(b) the court may
(i) continue the trial and proceed to a judgment or verdict and, if it finds the accused guilty, impose a sentence on him in his absence, or
(ii) if a warrant in Form 7 [forms] is issued for the arrest of the accused, adjourn the trial to await his appearance,

but where the trial is adjourned pursuant to subparagraph (b)(ii), the court may, at any time, continue the trial if it is satisfied that it is no longer in the interests of justice to await the appearance of the accused.

Adverse inference

(2) Where a court continues a trial pursuant to subsection (1) [accused absconding during trial], it may draw an inference adverse to the accused from the fact that he has absconded.

Accused not entitled to re-opening

(3) Where an accused reappears at his trial that is continuing pursuant to subsection (1) [accused absconding during trial], he is not entitled to have any part of the proceedings that was conducted in his absence re-opened unless the court is satisfied that because of exceptional circumstances it is in the interests of justice to re-open the proceedings.

Counsel for accused may continue to act

(4) Where an accused has absconded during the course of his trial and the court continues the trial, counsel for the accused is not thereby deprived of any authority he may have to continue to act for the accused in the proceedings.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 475; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F), c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F).
[annotation(s) added]

– CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)

Note up: 475(1), (2), (3), and (4)


Defined terms: "Act" (s. 2)

For the purpose of s. 475, "abscond" refers to the avoidance of trial "for the purpose of impeding or frustrating" the trial. Merely failure to attend is not enough.[2] The court must be satisfied that the accused "absented himself... for the purpose of impeding or frustrating the trial, or with the intention of avoiding its consequences."[3]

The court is permitted to proceed to sentencing in the absence of the accused, where there is sufficient information to do so.[4]

The finding that the accused absconds is not permitted to be used as an aggravating factor to sentencing but can remove mitigating factors.[5]

Section 475 does not violate section 7[6] or section 11(d) right to a fair trial.[7]


Absconding Accused
Accused absconding during inquiry

544 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an accused, whether or not he is charged jointly with another, absconds during the course of a preliminary inquiry into an offence with which he is charged,

(a) he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present at the inquiry, and
(b) the justice
(i) may continue the inquiry and, when all the evidence has been taken, shall dispose of the inquiry in accordance with section 548 [order to stand trial or discharge, process and consequences], or
(ii) if a warrant is issued for the arrest of the accused, may adjourn the inquiry to await his appearance,

but where the inquiry is adjourned pursuant to subparagraph (b)(ii), the justice may continue it at any time pursuant to subparagraph (b)(i) if he is satisfied that it would no longer be in the interests of justice to await the appearance of the accused.

Adverse inference

(2) Where the justice continues a preliminary inquiry pursuant to subsection (1) [consequence of accused absconding preliminary inquiry], he may draw an inference adverse to the accused from the fact that he has absconded.

Accused not entitled to re-opening

(3) Where an accused reappears at a preliminary inquiry that is continuing pursuant to subsection (1) [consequence of accused absconding preliminary inquiry], he is not entitled to have any part of the proceedings that was conducted in his absence re-opened unless the justice is satisfied that because of exceptional circumstances it is in the interests of justice to re-open the inquiry.

Counsel for accused may continue to act

(4) Where an accused has absconded during the course of a preliminary inquiry and the justice continues the inquiry, counsel for the accused is not thereby deprived of any authority he may have to continue to act for the accused in the proceedings.

Accused calling witnesses

(5) If, at the conclusion of the evidence on the part of the prosecution at a preliminary inquiry that has been continued under subsection (1) [consequence of accused absconding preliminary inquiry], the accused is absent but their counsel is present, the counsel shall be given an opportunity to call witnesses on behalf of the accused, subject to subsection 537(1.01) [power limit issues and witnesses], and subsection 541(5) [depositions of inquiry witnesses] applies with any modifications that the circumstances require.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 544; 1994, c. 44, s. 55; 2019, c. 25, s. 246.
[annotation(s) added]

– CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)

Note up: 544(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)

  1. ↑ s. 800(2)
  2. ↑ R v Taylor, 2010 BCCA 58 (CanLII), 252 CCC (3d) 197, per Levine JA
  3. ↑ R v Mitsakis, 2022 ONSC 5390 (CanLII), OJ No 4224, per Schreck J, at para 14
    R v Garofoli, 1988 CanLII 3270 (ON CA), 41 CCC (3d) 97, per Martin JA at p. 141
  4. ↑ Mitsakis, supra at para 19
    R v Singh, 2015 ONSC 904 (CanLII) (working hyperlinks pending), per Pomerance J, at paras 9 to 10
  5. ↑ Singh, ibid., at para 19
  6. ↑ R v Czuczman, 1986 CanLII 2714 (ON CA), 26 CCC (3d) 43, per Brooke JA
  7. ↑ R v Tzimopoulos, 1986 CanLII 152 (ON CA), 29 CCC (3d) 304, per curiam

Deceased Accused

Generally, a prosecution will terminate by the Court declaring the matter "abated" where the accused dies regardless of the stage of proceedings.[1]

There are some exceptions permitted for pending appellate matters.[2]

The Court of Appeal maintains jurisdiction over an appeal where the accused has died. It is in their discretion to either declare the appeal "abated" or consider it on its merits.[3] Discretion should be exercised where the court is satisfied that:[4]

  1. there are serious grounds of appeal and the verdict being appealed carries significant consequences for the party seeking to continue the appeal; or
  2. for any reason where it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The "interests of justice" component will be the predominant consideration and should subsume the other elements.[5]

The "interests of justice" test requires consideration of "all relevant circumstances."[6]

The "overwhelming number" of appeals where the accused dies should result in abatement.[7]

"Scarce judicial resources" should rarely be a "disqualifying consideration."[8]

Fresh evidence leading to factual innocence may be sufficient to be in the interests of justice.[9]

Factors

The court should consider to varying degrees the following non-exhaustive list of factors:[10]

  1. whether the appeal will proceed in a proper adversarial context;
  2. the strength of the grounds of the appeal;
  3. whether there are special circumstances that transcend the death of the individual appellant/respondent, including:
    1. a legal issue of general public importance, particularly if it is otherwise evasive of appellate review;
    2. a systemic issue related to the administration of justice;
    3. collateral consequences to the family of the deceased or to other interested persons or to the public;
  4. whether the nature of the order which could be made by the appellate court justifies the expenditure of limited judicial (or court) resources to resolve a moot appeal;
  5. whether continuing the appeal would go beyond the judicial function of resolving concrete disputes and involve the court in free-standing, legislative-type pronouncements more properly left to the legislature itself.
  1. ↑ R v Ssenyonga, 1993 CanLII 14680 (ON SC), [1993] OJ No 3273 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)), per McDermid J
    R v Neufeldt, 2005 ABPC 163 (CanLII), per Norheim J
    R v Douglas, 2004 BCPC 279 (CanLII), per Lenaghan J
  2. ↑ R v MacLellan, 2019 NSCA 2 (CanLII), per Beveridge JA (2:1)
    R v Jetté, 1999 CanLII 13411 (QC CA), , 141 CCC (3d) 52; [1999] J.Q. No 4641, per Fish JA (3:0) - first case to find discretion to continue
    R v Smith, 2004 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2004] 1 SCR 385, per Binnie J (7:0)
    cf. R v Netter, [1975] BCJ No 1191 (CA)(*no CanLII links)
    Collins v The Queen, 1973 CanLII 655 (ON CA), [1973] 3 OR 672 (CA), per curiam
    Cadeddu v The Queen, 1983 CanLII 1763 (ON CA), (1983), 41 OR (2d) 481 (CA), 3 CCC (3d) 112, per curiam
    R v Hay, [1994] OJ No 2598 (CA)(*no CanLII links)
    R v Lewis, 1997 CanLII 3584 (BC CA), (1997), 153 DLR (4th) 184 (BCCA)
  3. ↑ Jette, supra, at para 59 Cadeddu, supra, at pp. 118-119
  4. ↑ Jette, supra, at para 60
  5. ↑ Smith, supra, at paras 41 and 42
  6. ↑ Smith, supra, at para 46
  7. ↑ Smith, supra, at para 46
    Cadeddu, supra, at p. 114
  8. ↑ Smith, supra, at para 47
  9. ↑ e.g. see Jette, supra
  10. ↑ Smith, supra, at para 51


Special Issues of Accused Appearances

Right to Face Accusers

The "right to face one's accusers is not in this day and age to be taken in the literal sense...it is simply the right of an accused to be present in court, to hear the case against him and to make answer and defence to it."[1]

This is a qualified right and can be limited by the availability of witness screens, closed-circuit video testimony, video link testimony, and other statutory and common law protections of witnesses.

  1. ↑ R v R(ME), 1989 CanLII 7212 (NS CA), 49 CCC (3d) 475, per Macdonald JA
    R v JZS, 2008 BCCA 401 (CanLII), 238 CCC (3d) 522, per D Smith J, at para 34

Use of Restraints in Court

There is a presumption that the accused should not be in restraints while in court.[1] The crown Bears the burden to establish that the use of restraint is reasonable.[2]

  1. ↑ R v McNeill, 1996 CanLII 812 (ON CA), 108 CCC (3d) 364, per Morden ACJ
  2. ↑ R v Wills, 2006 CanLII 31909 (ON SC), [2006] OJ No 3662 (SCJ), per Fuerst J, at para 45

Sitting Position of Accused

Accused and Offender Defined

See also: Definitions of Parties, Persons, Places and Organizations

Right to Representation

See also: Representation at Trial

A judge must make adequate inquiries into whether the accused wants to be represented by counsel.[1] He should be "thorough" in his explanation of the importance of exercising the right.[2] Failure to do so may infringe the accused's Charter rights under s. 7.[3]

  1. ↑ R v Boone, 2003 MBQB 292 (CanLII), 179 Man R (2d) 227, per Darichuk J, at para 15
    R v Hardy, 1990 CanLII 5615 (AB QB), 62 CCC (3d) 28, per Mcdonald J
  2. ↑ Boone, supra, at para 16
    R v H(BC), 1990 CanLII 10964 (MB CA), 58 CCC (3d) 16, per Twaddle JA, at 22
  3. ↑ Boone, supra, at #par15 para 15
    see also Hardy, supra

Organizations as Accused

An accused who is an organization must appear by counsel or agent.[1] Failure of counsel or agent to attend permits the court to order an ex parte trial.[2]

  1. ↑ s. 800(3)
  2. ↑ S. 800(3)

See Also

Other Parties

Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Accused_in_Court&oldid=96216"