Order of Committal to Stand Trial: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "<Br>" to "<br>" |
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1''," |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
<!-- --> | <!-- --> | ||
The test for a preliminary inquiry is the same as a motion for non-suit or directed verdict.<Ref>R v Arcuri, [http://canlii.ca/t/51xv 2001 SCC 54] (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 828{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}<br> | The test for a preliminary inquiry is the same as a motion for non-suit or directed verdict.<Ref>''R v Arcuri'', [http://canlii.ca/t/51xv 2001 SCC 54] (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 828{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}<br> | ||
United States of America v Shephard, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mx51 1976 CanLII 8] (SCC), [1977] 2 SCR 1067, (1976) 30 CCC (2d) 424{{perSCC|Ritchie J}} at p. 427<br> | United States of America v Shephard, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mx51 1976 CanLII 8] (SCC), [1977] 2 SCR 1067, (1976) 30 CCC (2d) 424{{perSCC|Ritchie J}} at p. 427<br> | ||
R v Mezzo, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftrq 1986 CanLII 16] (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 802{{perSCC|McIntyre J}}, at pp. 842‑43<br> | ''R v Mezzo'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftrq 1986 CanLII 16] (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 802{{perSCC|McIntyre J}}, at pp. 842‑43<br> | ||
</ref> The test is: "whether or not there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty".<ref> | </ref> The test is: "whether or not there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty".<ref> | ||
{{supra1|Arcuri}} at para 21<br> | {{supra1|Arcuri}} at para 21<br> | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
The evidentiary standard is "very low". There must simply be "some or a scintilla of evidence on each essential element of the offence".<ref> | The evidentiary standard is "very low". There must simply be "some or a scintilla of evidence on each essential element of the offence".<ref> | ||
see R v Hyra, [http://canlii.ca/t/fzfwp 2013 MBCA 59] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Chartier JA}}, at para 10</ref> | see ''R v Hyra'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fzfwp 2013 MBCA 59] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Chartier JA}}, at para 10</ref> | ||
If the "evidence is capable of belief, it is to be believed".<ref> | If the "evidence is capable of belief, it is to be believed".<ref> | ||
R v Eckstein, [http://canlii.ca/t/ftdnx 2012 MBCA 96] (CanLII), [2012] M.J. No. 352 (C.A.){{perMBCA|Chartier JA}}, at para 18 | ''R v Eckstein'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ftdnx 2012 MBCA 96] (CanLII), [2012] M.J. No. 352 (C.A.){{perMBCA|Chartier JA}}, at para 18 | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The evidence cannot be considered "piecemeal" but rather the judge must examine the evidence as a whole.<ref> | The evidence cannot be considered "piecemeal" but rather the judge must examine the evidence as a whole.<ref> | ||
R v Muir, [http://canlii.ca/t/20krk 2008 ONCA 608] (CanLII), [2008] OJ No 3418 (C.A.){{TheCourt}}<br> | ''R v Muir'', [http://canlii.ca/t/20krk 2008 ONCA 608] (CanLII), [2008] OJ No 3418 (C.A.){{TheCourt}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
After hearing evidence and argument the court must make a ruling on whether to commit the accused to stand trial for the charges alleged.<ref> | After hearing evidence and argument the court must make a ruling on whether to commit the accused to stand trial for the charges alleged.<ref> | ||
R v Coke, [1996] OJ No 808{{perONSC|Hill J}} at para 8 to 11 {{NOCANLII}}<br> | ''R v Coke'', [1996] OJ No 808{{perONSC|Hill J}} at para 8 to 11 {{NOCANLII}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Where the evidence "consists solely of eyewitness testimony that would necessarily leave reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable juror, the trial judge must direct an acquittal upon a motion for directed verdict".<ref> | Where the evidence "consists solely of eyewitness testimony that would necessarily leave reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable juror, the trial judge must direct an acquittal upon a motion for directed verdict".<ref> | ||
R v Hay, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1rqt 2013 SCC 61] (CanLII){{perSCC|Rothstein J}}</ref> | ''R v Hay'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1rqt 2013 SCC 61] (CanLII){{perSCC|Rothstein J}}</ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
Where inferences may be drawn, it is not important if "more than one inference can be drawn...only the inferences that favour the Crown are to be considered".<ref> | Where inferences may be drawn, it is not important if "more than one inference can be drawn...only the inferences that favour the Crown are to be considered".<ref> | ||
R v Sazant, [http://canlii.ca/t/1j5fx 2004 SCC 77] (CanLII), [2004] 3 SCR 635{{perSCC|Major J}}{{at|18}}<br> | ''R v Sazant'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1j5fx 2004 SCC 77] (CanLII), [2004] 3 SCR 635{{perSCC|Major J}}{{at|18}}<br> | ||
see also R v Noddie, [2009] OJ No 855 {{NOCANLII}} - trial judge weighs inferences, ruling overturned | see also ''R v Noddie'', [2009] OJ No 855 {{NOCANLII}} - trial judge weighs inferences, ruling overturned | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
A committal where there is an absence of evidence on an essential element of the charge is a jurisdictional error.<ref> | A committal where there is an absence of evidence on an essential element of the charge is a jurisdictional error.<ref> | ||
R v Skogman, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpfg 1984 CanLII 22] (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 93, (1984) 13 CCC (3d) 161 at p.170-171</ref> | ''R v Skogman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpfg 1984 CanLII 22] (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 93, (1984) 13 CCC (3d) 161 at p.170-171</ref> | ||
An error in an evidentiary ruling on an element of the offence is not a jurisdictional error that is reviewable.<ref> | An error in an evidentiary ruling on an element of the offence is not a jurisdictional error that is reviewable.<ref> | ||
R v Beaven, [http://canlii.ca/t/frkpt 2012 SKCA 59] (CanLII) ("erroneous evidentiary ruling under which the only evidence on an essential ingredient of an offence is admitted is not a jurisdictional error")<br> | ''R v Beaven'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frkpt 2012 SKCA 59] (CanLII) ("erroneous evidentiary ruling under which the only evidence on an essential ingredient of an offence is admitted is not a jurisdictional error")<br> | ||
''R v LeBlanc'', [http://canlii.ca/t/273wl 2009 NBCA 84] (CanLII) | ''R v LeBlanc'', [http://canlii.ca/t/273wl 2009 NBCA 84] (CanLII) | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 08:42, 13 January 2019
General Principles
The test for a preliminary inquiry is the same as a motion for non-suit or directed verdict.[1] The test is: "whether or not there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty".[2]
The analysis requires the judge to determine whether "there is admissible evidence which could, if it were believed, result in a conviction".[3]
The evidentiary standard is "very low". There must simply be "some or a scintilla of evidence on each essential element of the offence".[4]
If the "evidence is capable of belief, it is to be believed".[5]
The evidence cannot be considered "piecemeal" but rather the judge must examine the evidence as a whole.[6]
After hearing evidence and argument the court must make a ruling on whether to commit the accused to stand trial for the charges alleged.[7]
Where the evidence "consists solely of eyewitness testimony that would necessarily leave reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable juror, the trial judge must direct an acquittal upon a motion for directed verdict".[8]
- ↑ R v Arcuri, 2001 SCC 54 (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 828, per McLachlin J
United States of America v Shephard, 1976 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1977] 2 SCR 1067, (1976) 30 CCC (2d) 424, per Ritchie J at p. 427
R v Mezzo, 1986 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 802, per McIntyre J, at pp. 842‑43
- ↑
Arcuri, supra at para 21
- ↑
USA v Shephard, supra at p. 427
- ↑ see R v Hyra, 2013 MBCA 59 (CanLII), per Chartier JA, at para 10
- ↑ R v Eckstein, 2012 MBCA 96 (CanLII), [2012] M.J. No. 352 (C.A.), per Chartier JA, at para 18
- ↑
R v Muir, 2008 ONCA 608 (CanLII), [2008] OJ No 3418 (C.A.), per curiam
- ↑
R v Coke, [1996] OJ No 808, per Hill J at para 8 to 11 (*no CanLII links)
- ↑ R v Hay, 2013 SCC 61 (CanLII), per Rothstein J
Inferences and Circumstantial Evidence
The test remains the same whether the evidence is circumstantial or direct. [1]
Where inferences may be drawn, it is not important if "more than one inference can be drawn...only the inferences that favour the Crown are to be considered".[2]
- ↑ see Mezzo v The Queen, 1986 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 802
- ↑
R v Sazant, 2004 SCC 77 (CanLII), [2004] 3 SCR 635, per Major J, at para 18
see also R v Noddie, [2009] OJ No 855 (*no CanLII links) - trial judge weighs inferences, ruling overturned
Insufficient Evidence
Where the evidence is not sufficient to commit the matter to trial the Judge may discharge the accused of the charges alleged:
Order to stand trial or discharge
548. (1) When all the evidence has been taken by the justice, he shall
- (a) if in his opinion there is sufficient evidence to put the accused on trial for the offence charged or any other indictable offence in respect of the same transaction, order the accused to stand trial; or
- (b) discharge the accused, if in his opinion on the whole of the evidence no sufficient case is made out to put the accused on trial for the offence charged or any other indictable offence in respect of the same transaction.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 548; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101; 1994, c. 44, s. 56.
– CCC
Standard of Review
Errors of jurisdiction
Where a judge incorrectly decides on the issue of committal there may be a loss of jurisdiction reviewable on a writ of certiorari.
A committal where there is an absence of evidence on an essential element of the charge is a jurisdictional error.[1]
An error in an evidentiary ruling on an element of the offence is not a jurisdictional error that is reviewable.[2]
- ↑ R v Skogman, 1984 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 93, (1984) 13 CCC (3d) 161 at p.170-171
- ↑
R v Beaven, 2012 SKCA 59 (CanLII) ("erroneous evidentiary ruling under which the only evidence on an essential ingredient of an offence is admitted is not a jurisdictional error")
R v LeBlanc, 2009 NBCA 84 (CanLII)
Consent to Committal
At any time before the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry the accused may consent to committal.
Order to stand trial at any stage of inquiry with consent
549. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the justice may, at any stage of a preliminary inquiry, with the consent of the accused and the prosecutor, order the accused to stand trial in the court having criminal jurisdiction, without taking or recording any evidence or further evidence.
Limited preliminary inquiry
(1.1) If the prosecutor and the accused agree under section 536.5 to limit the scope of a preliminary inquiry to specific issues, the justice, without recording evidence on any other issues, may order the accused to stand trial in the court having criminal jurisdiction.
Procedure
(2) If an accused is ordered to stand trial under this section, the justice shall endorse on the information a statement of the consent of the accused and the prosecutor, and the accused shall after that be dealt with in all respects as if ordered to stand trial under section 548.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 549; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101; 2002, c. 13, s. 30.
– CCC
Ordering Committal
When the preliminary inquiry judge makes an order of committal he must transfer the record of the matter (the information, evidence, exhibits and statements made under s. 541, release documents, etc) to the superior court. That is stated in s. 551:
Transmitting record
551 Where a justice orders an accused to stand trial, the justice shall forthwith send to the clerk or other proper officer of the court by which the accused is to be tried, the information, the evidence, the exhibits, the statement if any of the accused taken down in writing under section 541, any promise to appear, undertaking or recognizance given or entered into in accordance with Part XVI, or any evidence taken before a coroner, that is in the possession of the justice.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 551; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 102.
– CCC
Fixing Dates
548 (1) ...
Where accused ordered to stand trial
(2.1) A justice who orders that an accused is to stand trial has the power to fix the date for the trial or the date on which the accused must appear in the trial court to have that date fixed.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 548; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101; 1994, c. 44, s. 56.
– CCC
New Charges
548...
Endorsing charge
(2) Where the justice orders the accused to stand trial for an indictable offence, other than or in addition to the one with which the accused was charged, the justice shall endorse on the information the charges on which he orders the accused to stand trial.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 548; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101; 1994, c. 44, s. 56.
– CCC
Defects to Order
548
...
Defect not to affect validity
(3) The validity of an order to stand trial is not affected by any defect apparent on the face of the information in respect of which the preliminary inquiry is held or in respect of any charge on which the accused is ordered to stand trial unless, in the opinion of the court before which an objection to the information or charge is taken, the accused has been misled or prejudiced in his defence by reason of that defect.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 548; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101; 1994, c. 44, s. 56.
– CCC
Order Transferring Detained Property
490
...
When accused ordered to stand trial
(4) When an accused has been ordered to stand trial, the justice shall forward anything detained pursuant to subsections (1) to (3) to the clerk of the court to which the accused has been ordered to stand trial to be detained by the clerk of the court and disposed of as the court directs.
...
– CCC