Accused in Court: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
 
(49 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Fr:Accusé_devant_le_tribunal]]
{{Currency2|January|2023}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderTrials}}
{{HeaderTrials}}
Line 5: Line 7:


==Right to Self-Representation==
==Right to Self-Representation==
* [[Right to Self-Representation]]


Constitutionally and through statute under s. 651(2) and (3), an accused has a right to represent themselves.<ref>
==Accused's Obligation to be Present in Court==
{{CanLIIRP|Swain|1fsks|1991 CanLII 104 (SCC)|[1991] 1 SCR 933}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atp|972}} ("Given that the principles of fundamental justice contemplate an accusatorial and adversarial system of criminal justice which is founded on respect for the autonomy and dignity of human beings, it seems clear to me that the principles of fundamental justice must also require that an accused person have the right to control his or her own defence.  ...  If at any time before verdict there is a question as to the accused's ability to conduct his or her defence, the trial judge may direct that the issue of fitness to stand trial be tried before matters proceed further (see Criminal Code, s. 543, now s. 615).  Thus, an accused who has not been found unfit to stand trial must be considered capable of conducting his or her own defence.")<br>
* [[Obligation of Accused to be Present During Proceedings]]
{{CanLIIR|Imon-Russel|hzgjv|2019 ONCA 252 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Lauwers JA}}{{atL|hzgjv|67}} ("An accused also has the right to discharge counsel including counsel appointed under a Rowbotham order, but since amicus does not represent the accused person, the accused person may not discharge amicus.")<br>
{{CanLIIR|Chemama|gsz4v|2016 ONCA 579 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Brown JA}}{{atL|gsz4v|58}} ("An accused has an unfettered right to discharge his or her legal counsel at any time and for any reason. A court cannot interfere with this decision and cannot force counsel upon an unwilling accused")<br>
</ref>
 
; No Special Advantages
A self-represented accused is not to be afforded any "special advantages" where they chose to go without counsel. The right to make full answer and defence, adduce relevant evidence and make argument remains, but they are not permitted to engage in endless calling of irrelevant evidence.<Ref>
Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report of the Review of Large and Complex Criminal Case Procedures, by The Honourable P. LeSage & Professor M. Code (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2008) at 159-6
</ref>
 
; Challenges of Self-Representation
There are various problems that arise from an accused who represents himself. That includes a rudimentary understanding of the process, misleading depictions from popular media, lack of knowledge of proper procedure and rules of evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Bain|hx1mn|2014 QCCS 1625 (CanLII)}}{{fix}}{{atL|hx1mn|24}} ("Whatever the reason for his or her status, the self-represented accused is usually ill-equipped to conduct a criminal trial. He or she comes to court with a rudimentary understanding of the trial process, often influenced by misleading depictions from television shows and the movies.… His or her knowledge of substantive legal principles is limited to that derived from reading an annotated criminal code. He or she is unaware of procedure and evidentiary rules. Even once made aware of the rules, he or she is reluctant to comply with them, or has difficulty doing so. …The limitations imposed by the concept of relevance are not understood or are ignored, and the focus of the trial is often on tangential matters. Questions, whether in examination-in-chief or cross-examination, are not framed properly. Rambling, disjointed or convoluted questions are the norm. The opportunity to make submissions is viewed as an opportunity to give evidence without entering the witness box.")
</ref>
 
; Obligations of Crown
 
Where an accused is self-represented the Crown should make additional efforts to ensure that disclosure has been made. The accused's failure to receive disclosure, through no fault of their own, may be considered a failure on the part of Crown.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Tossounian|h50vj|2017 ONCA 618 (CanLII)|, 254 CCC (3d) 365}}{{perONCA|Juriansz JA}}
</ref>
 
; Obligations on Court
When the accused is self-represented, the court has obligations to ensure that they do not favour one side over the other and also take steps to ensure that the trial is not unfair to a point where there is a miscarriage of justice.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Varcoe||2007 ONCA 194 (CanLII)}}{{fix}}{{atL||26}} (“It is a fine line that trial judges are required to walk in dealing with unrepresented and self-represented accused persons. Trial judges are to avoid any conduct that may be seen to favour one side over the other and to maintain their independence as between the two. This obligation must be balanced against the need to take steps to ensure that no miscarriage of justice occurs as a result of an unrepresented accused”)<Br>
{{CanLIIR|Jayne||2008 ONCA 258 (CanLII)}}{{fix}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Richards|h3xwx|2017 ONCA 424 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|h3xwx|110}} ("Where an accused is self-represented, a trial judge has a duty to ensure that the accused has a fair trial. To fulfill this duty, the trial judge must provide guidance to the accused to the extent the circumstances of the case and accused may require. Within reason, the trial judge must provide assistance to aid the accused in the proper conduct of his defence and to guide him as the trial unfolds in such a way that the defence is brought out with its full force and effect:...")<Br>
{{supra1|Tossounian}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Sabir||2018 ONCA 912}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Meloche||2019 ONCA 521}}<br>
</ref>
 
There is a "heavy onus" on the court to provides assistance.<ref>
{{supra1|Ricards}}{{atL|h3xwx|112}} ("The onus on the trial judge to assist the self-represented accused is a heavy one.")<br>
</ref>
 
The Court should only take steps that would be reasonable to assist the accused without becoming counsel for the accused.<ref>
{{supra1|Richards}}{{atL|h3xwx|111}} ("The duty owed by trial judges to self-represented litigants is circumscribed by a standard of reasonableness. The trial judge is not, and must not become, counsel for the accused. The judge is not entitled, indeed prohibited, from providing the assistance of the kind counsel would furnish when retained to do so ... A standard of reasonableness accommodates a range of options to ensure the necessary degree of assistance and eschews a single exclusive response.")
</ref>
 
This obligation may include raising ''Charter'' issues on the court's own motion.<ref>
{{supra1|Richards}}{{atL|h3xwx|113}} ("The onus extends, at least can extend, to an obligation on the trial judge to raise Charter issues on the judge’s own motion where the accused is self-represented")
</ref>
This obligation will apply where there is uncontradicted evidence of a breach. However, it must be more than a "mere scent or intimation" of a breach.<ref>
{{supra1|Richards}}{{atL|h3xwx|113}} ("This is not to say, however, that this specific obligation becomes engaged on the mere scent or intimation of a possible Charter infringement: ... But where there is admissible uncontradicted evidence of a relevant Charter breach, the trial judge has an obligation to raise the issue, invite submissions and enter upon an inquiry into the infringement and its consequences:")
</ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Appearance Other Than Trial==
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>
[{{CCCSec|650}} s. 650(1)] requires attendance at trial<br>
[{{CCCSec|650.01}} s. 650.01] allows counsel to appear on accused behalf for non-trial matters<br>
</ref>
 
{{quotation1|
; Appearance of the accused
502.1 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part {{AnnSec|Part XVI}}, an accused who is required to appear in a proceeding under this Part {{AnnSec|Part XVI}} shall appear personally but may appear by audioconference or videoconference, if arrangements are made with the court in advance and those arrangements are satisfactory to the justice.
 
; Witness in Canada
(2) Despite section 714.1 {{AnnSec7|714.1}}, a witness in Canada who is required to give evidence in a proceeding under this Part {{AnnSec|Part XVI}} may do so by audioconference or videoconference, if it is satisfactory to the justice.
 
; Witness outside Canada
(3) For greater certainty, sections 714.2 to 714.8 {{AnnSec7|714.2 to 714.8}} apply when a witness outside Canada gives evidence in a proceeding under this Part {{AnnSec|Part XVI}}.
 
; Participants
(4) A participant, as defined in subsection 715.25(1) {{AnnSec7|715.25(1)}}, who is to participate in a proceeding under this Part {{AnnSec|Part XVI}} shall participate personally but may participate by audioconference or videoconference, if it is satisfactory to the justice.
 
; Justice
(5) The justice who is to preside at a proceeding under this Part {{AnnSec|Part XVI}} shall preside personally but may preside by audioconference or videoconference, if the justice considers it necessary in the circumstances.
<br>
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 216.
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|502.1}} CCC]
}}
{{C75-fix}}
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Accused's Presence at Trial==
 
Under [{{CCCSec|650}} s. 650(1)] (indictable matters) and 800(2) (summary matters), the accused must be present for the whole of their trial.
 
Section 650 sets out the base requirement that the accused be present for their trial on an indictable matter as well as exceptions and other permitted accommodations. The section states:
{{quotation1|
; Accused to be present
650 (1) Subject to subsections (1.1) to (2) {{AnnSec6|650(1.1) to (2)}} and section 650.01 {{AnnSec6|650.01}}, an accused, other than an organization, shall be present in court during the whole of his or her trial.
<br>
; Video links
(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.
<br>
; Video links
(1.1) If the court so orders, and if the prosecutor and the accused so agree, the accused may appear by counsel or by closed-circuit television or videoconference, for any part of the trial other than a part in which the evidence of a witness is taken.
<br>
; Video links
(1.2) If the court so orders, an accused who is confined in prison may appear by closed-circuit television or videoconference, for any part of the trial other than a part in which the evidence of a witness is taken, as long as the accused is given the opportunity to communicate privately with counsel if they are represented by counsel.
<br>
; Exceptions
(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
(3) An accused is entitled, after the close of the case for the prosecution, to make full answer and defence personally or by counsel.
 
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 650;
{{LegHistory90s|1991, c. 43}}, s. 9;
{{LegHistory90s|1994, c. 44}}, s. 61;
{{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 18}}, s. 77;
{{LegHistory00s|2002, c. 13}}, s. 60;
{{LegHistory00s|2003, c. 21}}, s. 12;
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 274.
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|650}} CCC]
}}
 
Section 650 protects the "fundamental right" to be present at trial.<ref>
''R v Edwardsen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/j1gtl 2019 BCCA 259] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Harris JA}} (3:0){{atL|j1gtl|9}} ("...the right of the accused to be present at trial is a fundamental right protected by s. 650 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.")<br>
</ref>
Violation of the section will generally render the trial void irrespective of whether any prejudice was caused.<ref>
''R v Meunier'', [http://canlii.ca/t/227n7 1966 CanLII 50 (CSC)], [1966] RCS 399
</ref>
Counsel are not permitted to waive this requirement.<REF>
{{CanLIIR|Dumont, Bellegarde and Yuzicappi|g7q8w|1984 CanLII 2432 (SK CA)}}{{perSKCA|Hall JA}}{{atL|g7q8w|5}} ("The provisions of s. 577(1) cannot be waived by counsel. Under these circumstances the convictions must be set aside and a new trial ordered.")
</ref>
 
The prohibition is more lenient in certain circumstances. Non-presence of the accused during counsel submissions on an admissibility issue, absent prejudice, can be treated as a procedural irregularity and may not require a new trial.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Mohebtash|1rnq4|2007 BCCA 307 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Hall JA}}{{atL|1rnq4|14}} ("In my opinion, the short absences of the appellant from the courtroom while legal argument occurred in his absence were of no particular moment in these trial proceedings.  I cannot think that a fair‑minded and knowledgeable observer would have any belief that what occurred here had any capacity to work an injustice upon this appellant.  I entirely agree with the comment of trial counsel for the appellant that there was no prejudice caused by the events to the appellant.  What occurred here was within the terms of s. 686(1)(b)(iv), a procedural irregularity at trial that occasioned no prejudice to the appellant.  In those circumstances, I would invoke the provisions of that section.")
</ref>
 
; Charter and section 650
Where there is a violation of s. 650, it may also amount to a violation of s. 7 and 11(d){{CCRF}}. A Charter violation cannot be treated as a procedural irregularity.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dedam|htnz1|2018 NBCA 52 (CanLII)|, 364 CCC (3d) 360}}{{perNBCA|Quigg JA}}
</ref>
 
; What Constitutes "Trial"
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>
''R v Sinclair'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvx90 2013 ONCA 64] (CanLII){{perONCA|Rouleau JA}}{{atL|fvx90|15}} : cites many examples
</ref>The key factor is whether the proceedings involved the accused's "vital interests."<ref>
{{ibid1|Sinclair}}{{atL|fvx90|15}}<br>
''R v Vezina; R v Cote'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mfdq 1986 CanLII 93] (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 2{{perSCC|Lamer J}}<br>
</ref>
 
; Vital Interests
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>
{{supra1|Sinclair}}{{atL|fvx90|17}} (discussions occurred without accused present, however, discussions were summarized to accused in court and only finalized in accused presence.)<br>
''R v Dunbar'', (1982), 68 CCC (2d) 13, [http://canlii.ca/t/gb3gd 1982 CanLII 3324] (ON CA){{perONCA|Martin JA}}<br>
</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 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.
 
; Contact with Jurors
The judge may not interview jurors outside of the presence of the accused.<ref>
{{supra1|Vezina}}<br>
''R v Fenton'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23m1j 1984 CanLII 633] (BC CA), (1984), 11 CCC (3d) 109{{perBCCA|Taggart JA}}<br>
</ref>
 
Discussions between the judge and prospective jurors are part of trial and must be in presence of accused.<ref>
{{supra1|Sinclair}}
</ref>
 
As a general practice, any communications between prospective jurors and the judge should be recorded. Any reasons for excluding a prospective juror should also be on the record.<ref>
{{supra1|Sinclair}}
</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>
''R v James'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23f8n 2009 ONCA 366] (CanLII){{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}} <br>
</ref>
 
The judge talking with the jury constables and reporter after trial when she heard that members of the jury were pressured in their verdict.<ref>
''R v Phillips'', [http://canlii.ca/t/219zk 2008 ONCA 726] (CanLII){{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}
</ref>
 
; Trial Includes Voir Dires
Any voir dire is considered part of the trial and therefore is subject to the requirements of s. 650 the same the actual trial.<ref>
''R v Edwardsen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/j1gtl 2019 BCCA 259] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Harris JA}} (3:0){{atL|j1gtl|9}} ("... a voir dire is part of the trial. For the purposes of s. 650 of the Code, there is no distinction between receiving evidence on a voir dire and receiving evidence at the trial proper. Mr. Edwardsen had the same right to be present for the evidence led on the voir dire as he had for any part of the trial.")<br>
</ref>
 
; Remedy
Where there is a part of the trial without the presence of the accused as a procedural irregularity, it may be cured under s. 686(1)(b)(iv), particularly where there is no prejudice or unfairness against the accused.<ref>
{{supra1|Sinclair}}
</ref>
 
{{Reflist|2}}
===Summary Offences===
{{quotation1|
; When both parties appear
800 (1) Where the prosecutor and defendant appear for the trial, the summary conviction court shall proceed to hold the trial.
 
; Counsel or agent
(2) A defendant may appear personally or by counsel or agent, but the summary conviction court may require the defendant to appear personally and may, if it thinks fit, issue a warrant in Form 7 for the arrest of the defendant and adjourn the trial to await his appearance pursuant thereto.
 
{{removed|(2.1) and (3)}}
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 800;
1997, c. 18, s. 111;
2003, c. 21, s. 21;
2019, c. 25, s. 317
 
|[{{CCCSec|800}} CCC]
}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Video-link Appearance==
==Video-link Appearance==
Line 222: Line 23:


===From Preliminary Inquiry or Trial===
===From Preliminary Inquiry or Trial===
{{quotation1|
{{quotation3|
; Accused absconding during 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,
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,
Line 244: Line 45:
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 185(F), c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F).
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 185(F), c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F).
{{Annotation}}
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|475}} CCC]
|{{CCCSec2|475}}
|{{NoteUp|475|1|2|3|4}}
|{{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.<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 Taylor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/28c6d 2010 BCCA 58] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Levine JA}}
{{CanLIIRP|Taylor|28c6d|2010 BCCA 58 (CanLII)|252 CCC (3d) 197}}{{perBCCA|Levine JA}}
</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>
{{CanLIIRP|Mitsakis|js24b|2022 ONSC 5390 (CanLII)|OJ No 4224}}{{perONSC|Schreck J}}{{atL|js24b|14}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Garofoli|22kn2|1988 CanLII 3270 (ON CA)|41 CCC (3d) 97}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}} at p. 141
</ref>
 
The court is permitted to proceed to sentencing in the absence of the accused, where there is sufficient information to do so.<ref>
{{supra1|Mitsakis}} at para 19<Br>
{{CanLIIRT|Singh|gg9l7|2015 ONSC 904 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Pomerance J}}{{atsL|gg9l7|9| to 10}}<br>
</ref>
 
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>
</ref>


Section 475 does not violate section 7<ref>
Section 475 does not violate section 7<ref>
''Regina v Czuczman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g18bh 1986 CanLII 2714] (ON CA){{perONCA|Brooke JA}}
{{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>
</ref> or section 11(d) right to a fair trial.<ref>
''R v Tzimopoulos'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p70d 1986 CanLII 152] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}}
{{CanLIIRP|Tzimopoulos|1p70d|1986 CanLII 152 (ON CA)|29 CCC (3d) 304}}{{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>
</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|Taylor}}
</ref>


{{quotation1|
{{quotation2|
; Absconding Accused
; Absconding Accused
; Accused absconding during inquiry
; Accused absconding during inquiry
Line 287: Line 102:
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 246.
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 246.
{{Annotation}}
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|544}} CCC]
|{{CCCSec2|544}}
|{{NoteUp|544|1|2|3|4|5}}
}}
}}


Line 294: Line 110:
==Deceased Accused==
==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>
Generally, a prosecution will terminate by the Court declaring the matter "abated" where the accused dies regardless of the stage of proceedings.<ref>
''R v Ssenyonga'', [1993] O.J. No. 3273 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbr1w 1993 CanLII 14680] (ON SC){{perONSC|McDermid J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ssenyonga|gbr1w|1993 CanLII 14680 (ON SC)|[1993] OJ No 3273 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.))}}{{perONSC|McDermid J}}<br>
''R v Neufeldt'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lv6p 2005 ABPC 163] (CanLII){{perABPC|Norheim J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Neufeldt|1lv6p|2005 ABPC 163 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Norheim J}}<br>
''R v Douglas'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1hq80 2004 BCPC 279] (CanLII){{perBCPC|Lenaghan J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Douglas|1hq80|2004 BCPC 279 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Lenaghan J}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


There are is some exception permitted for pending appellate matters.<Ref>
There are some exceptions permitted for pending appellate matters.<Ref>
''R v MacLellan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hx2m9 2019 NSCA 2] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}} (2:1)<br>
{{CanLIIRx|MacLellan|hx2m9|2019 NSCA 2 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}} (2:1)<br>
''R v Jetté'' (1999), 141 CCC (3d) 52; [1999] J.Q. No 4641, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mvxs 1999 CanLII 13411] (QC CA){{perQCCA|Fish JA}} (3:0) - first case to find discretion to continue<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>
''R v Smith'', [2004] 1 SCR 385, [http://canlii.ca/t/1glp1 2004 SCC 14] (CanLII){{perSCC|Binnie J}} (7:0)<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|1glp1|2004 SCC 14 (CanLII)|[2004] 1 SCR 385}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}} (7:0)<br>
cf. ''R v Netter'', [1975] BCJ No. 1191 (C.A.){{NOCANLII}}<br>  
cf. {{CanLIIR-N|Netter|, [1975] BCJ No 1191 (CA)}}<br>  
''Collins v The Queen'', [1973] 3 O.R. 672 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g1887 1973 CanLII 655] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Collins v The Queen|g1887|1973 CanLII 655 (ON CA)|[1973] 3 OR 672 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
''Cadeddu v The Queen'' (1983), 41 O.R. (2d) 481 (C.A.), 3 C.C.C. (3d) 112 (Ont. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g1cql 1983 CanLII 1763] (ON 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>
''R v Hay'', [1994] O.J. No. 2598 (C.A.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Hay|, [1994] OJ No 2598 (CA)}}<br>
''R v Lewis'' (1997), 153 D.L.R. (4th) 184 (B.C.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1dzd1 1997 CanLII 3584] (BC CA)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Lewis|1dzd1|1997 CanLII 3584 (BC CA)| (1997), 153 DLR (4th) 184 (BCCA)}}<br>
</ref>
</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 considering it on its merits.<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>
{{supra1|Jette}}{{atL|1mvxs|59}}
{{supra1|Jette}}{{atL|1mvxs|59}}
{{supra1|Cadeddu}}{{atps|118-119}}
{{supra1|Cadeddu}}{{atps|118-119}}
Line 324: Line 140:
</ref>
</ref>


The "interests of justice" test requires consideration of "all relevant circumstances".<ref>
The "interests of justice" test requires consideration of "all relevant circumstances."<ref>
{{supra1|Smith}}{{atL|1glp1|46}}
{{supra1|Smith}}{{atL|1glp1|46}}
</ref>
</ref>
Line 333: Line 149:
</ref>
</ref>


"Scarce judicial resources" should rarely be a "disqualifying consideration".<ref>
"Scarce judicial resources" should rarely be a "disqualifying consideration."<ref>
{{supra1|Smith}}{{atL|1glp1|47}}
{{supra1|Smith}}{{atL|1glp1|47}}
</ref>
</ref>
Line 361: Line 177:
===Right to Face Accusers===
===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}}{{atL|214pf|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}}
Line 371: Line 187:
===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>
{{CanLIIRP|McNeill|6hwl|1996 CanLII 812 (ON CA)|108 CCC (3d) 364}}{{perONCA|Morden ACJ}}</ref>
The crown Bears the burden to establish that the use of restraint is reasonable.<ref>
The crown Bears the burden to establish that the use of restraint is reasonable.<ref>
''R v Wills'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1pfmc 2006 CanLII 31909] (ON SC), [2006] OJ No 3662 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Fuerst J}}{{atL|1pfmc|45}}
{{CanLIIRP|Wills|1pfmc|2006 CanLII 31909 (ON SC)|[2006] OJ No 3662 (SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Fuerst J}}{{atL|1pfmc|45}}
</ref>
</ref>


Line 388: Line 204:


A judge must make adequate inquiries into whether the accused wants to be represented by counsel.<ref>
A judge must make adequate inquiries into whether the accused wants to be represented by counsel.<ref>
''R v Boone'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4d4 2003 MBQB 292] (CanLII){{perMBQB|Darichuk J}}{{atL|1g4d4|15}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Boone|1g4d4|2003 MBQB 292 (CanLII)|179 Man R (2d) 227}}{{perMBQB|Darichuk J}}{{atL|1g4d4|15}}<br>
''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>
{{CanLIIRP|Hardy|28nhl|1990 CanLII 5615 (AB QB)|62 CCC (3d) 28}}{{perABQB|Mcdonald J}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
He should be "thorough" in his explanation of the importance of exercising the right.<ref>
He should be "thorough" in his explanation of the importance of exercising the right.<ref>
{{supra1|Boone}}{{atL|1g4d4|16}}<br>
{{supra1|Boone}}{{atL|1g4d4|16}}<br>
''R v H(BC)'', (1990), 58 CCC (3d) 16, [http://canlii.ca/t/gcd0q 1990 CanLII 10964] (MB CA){{perMBCA|Twaddle JA}}, at 22<br>
{{CanLIIRP|H(BC)|gcd0q|1990 CanLII 10964 (MB CA)|58 CCC (3d) 16}}{{perMBCA|Twaddle JA}}, at 22<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Failure to do so may infringe the accused's Charter rights under s. 7.<ref>
Failure to do so may infringe the accused's Charter rights under s. 7.<ref>
Line 414: Line 230:
'''Other Parties'''
'''Other Parties'''
* [[Role of the Defence Counsel]]
* [[Role of the Defence Counsel]]
* [[Role of Trial Judge]]  
* [[Role of the Trial Judge]]  
* [[Role of the Victim and Third Parties]]
* [[Role of the Victim and Third Parties]]
* [[Role of Law Enforcement]]
* [[Role of Law Enforcement]]
* [[Role of the Crown]]
* [[Role of the Crown]]

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"