Guilty Plea: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "<Br>" to "<br>"
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1'',"
Line 7: Line 7:
This process has three steps:<ref>
This process has three steps:<ref>
''R v Senior'' (1996), 181 A.R. 1; aff’d, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr29 1997 CanLII 348] (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 288{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br>
''R v Senior'' (1996), 181 A.R. 1; aff’d, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr29 1997 CanLII 348] (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 288{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br>
R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 19<br>
''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 19<br>
</ref>  
</ref>  
# the entry of a guilty plea
# the entry of a guilty plea
Line 29: Line 29:


If the accused does not remember or recall the incident, the judge may still accept the guilty plea so long as the accused is capable to accept the allegation as correct.<ref>
If the accused does not remember or recall the incident, the judge may still accept the guilty plea so long as the accused is capable to accept the allegation as correct.<ref>
R v Jawbone, [http://canlii.ca/t/1flh4 1998 CanLII 6104] (MB CA){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}
''R v Jawbone'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1flh4 1998 CanLII 6104] (MB CA){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}
</ref>
</ref>


Line 43: Line 43:


The "offering" or "tendering" of a guilty plea by an accused is a separate and distinct step from the judge formally accepting the plea.<ref>
The "offering" or "tendering" of a guilty plea by an accused is a separate and distinct step from the judge formally accepting the plea.<ref>
R v Cataract, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nqnd 1994 CanLII 4616] (SK CA), [1994] S.J. No. 524{{perSKCA|Bayda CJ}} (3:0) at para 15 ("It is made perfectly clear by this decision that the entering by an accused of a guilty plea is one step in the proceeding and the acceptance of that plea by the judge is a separate and distinct step.")
''R v Cataract'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nqnd 1994 CanLII 4616] (SK CA), [1994] S.J. No. 524{{perSKCA|Bayda CJ}} (3:0) at para 15 ("It is made perfectly clear by this decision that the entering by an accused of a guilty plea is one step in the proceeding and the acceptance of that plea by the judge is a separate and distinct step.")
</ref>
</ref>


Section 606(1.1) is a codification of the common law.<ref>
Section 606(1.1) is a codification of the common law.<ref>
R v Sullivan, [http://canlii.ca/t/1h4rg 2004 BCSC 683] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Cole J}}{{at|21}}<br>
''R v Sullivan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1h4rg 2004 BCSC 683] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Cole J}}{{at|21}}<br>
R v Peters, [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}}{{at|9}}<br>
''R v Peters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}}{{at|9}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 81: Line 81:
R v Hector [http://canlii.ca/t/1fb50 2000 CanLII 5725] (ONCA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Hector [http://canlii.ca/t/1fb50 2000 CanLII 5725] (ONCA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} (3:0)<br>
see also:
see also:
R v Lyons, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftlw 1987 CanLII 25] (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 309{{perSCC|La Forest J}} (5:2) at p 371<br>
''R v Lyons'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftlw 1987 CanLII 25] (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 309{{perSCC|La Forest J}} (5:2) at p 371<br>
R v Leonard, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twnh 2007 SKCA 128] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Richards JA}} (3:0) at para 17<br>
''R v Leonard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1twnh 2007 SKCA 128] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Richards JA}} (3:0) at para 17<br>
R v Claveau [http://canlii.ca/t/57c0 2003 NBCA 52] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Deschênes JA}} (3:0) at para 7<br>
R v Claveau [http://canlii.ca/t/57c0 2003 NBCA 52] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Deschênes JA}} (3:0) at para 7<br>
R v Pottie, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mpvm 1996 CanLII 5604], (1996) NSR 2d 56 (NSCA){{perNSCA|Pugsley JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Pottie'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mpvm 1996 CanLII 5604], (1996) NSR 2d 56 (NSCA){{perNSCA|Pugsley JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Fegan, [http://canlii.ca/t/g16wp 1993 CanLII 8607] (ON CA), (1993) 80 CCC 3d 356 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} (3:0) at p. 360<br>
''R v Fegan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g16wp 1993 CanLII 8607] (ON CA), (1993) 80 CCC 3d 356 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} (3:0) at p. 360<br>
''R v RT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834], 17 C.R. (4th) 247 (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0) at p. 252 (Ont. C.A.) ("To constitute a valid guilty plea, the plea must be voluntary and unequivocal. The plea must also be informed, that is the accused must be aware of the nature of the allegations made against him, the effect of his plea, and the consequence of his plea.")<br>
''R v RT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834], 17 C.R. (4th) 247 (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0) at p. 252 (Ont. C.A.) ("To constitute a valid guilty plea, the plea must be voluntary and unequivocal. The plea must also be informed, that is the accused must be aware of the nature of the allegations made against him, the effect of his plea, and the consequence of his plea.")<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 96: Line 96:
see also R v Adgey [1975] 2 SCR 426, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC){{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2) at p. 430</ref>  
see also R v Adgey [1975] 2 SCR 426, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC){{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2) at p. 430</ref>  
This is so in order to promote the "gravity, finality and integrity of the process."<ref>
This is so in order to promote the "gravity, finality and integrity of the process."<ref>
R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 24</ref>
''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 24</ref>


While it is not essential for the acceptance of a guilty plea, it is recommended that the facts should be read to the judge before he accepts the guilty plea.<ref>
While it is not essential for the acceptance of a guilty plea, it is recommended that the facts should be read to the judge before he accepts the guilty plea.<ref>
R v Cataract, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nqnd 1994 CanLII 4616] (SK CA), [1994] S.J. No. 524{{perSKCA|Bayda CJ}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Cataract'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nqnd 1994 CanLII 4616] (SK CA), [1994] S.J. No. 524{{perSKCA|Bayda CJ}} (3:0)<br>
''R v IBB'', [http://canlii.ca/t/24btq 2009 SKPC 76] (CanLII){{perSKPC|Whelan J}}<br>
''R v IBB'', [http://canlii.ca/t/24btq 2009 SKPC 76] (CanLII){{perSKPC|Whelan J}}<br>
R v Corkum, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dgq2 1984 ABCA 226] (CanLII), [1984] AJ No 970, 64 A.R. 354{{perABCA|Stevenson JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Corkum'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dgq2 1984 ABCA 226] (CanLII), [1984] AJ No 970, 64 A.R. 354{{perABCA|Stevenson JA}} (3:0)<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 108: Line 108:
===Voluntariness===
===Voluntariness===
Voluntariness of a plea refers to the "conscious volitional decision" of the accused to plea guilty "for reasons which he ... regards as appropriate".<ref>
Voluntariness of a plea refers to the "conscious volitional decision" of the accused to plea guilty "for reasons which he ... regards as appropriate".<ref>
R v Campbell, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6r9t 2014 NBPC 36] (CanLII){{perNBPC|Cloutier J}}{{at|42}}<br>
''R v Campbell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6r9t 2014 NBPC 36] (CanLII){{perNBPC|Cloutier J}}{{at|42}}<br>
R v Rosen, [http://canlii.ca/t/1tx99 1979 CanLII 59] (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 961{{perSCC|Mclntyre J}} (8:1) at p. 974, 51 CCC (2d) 65 at p. 75<br>
''R v Rosen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1tx99 1979 CanLII 59] (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 961{{perSCC|Mclntyre J}} (8:1) at p. 974, 51 CCC (2d) 65 at p. 75<br>
</ref> It is one that is not the product of "coercion or duress".<ref>
</ref> It is one that is not the product of "coercion or duress".<ref>
R v Peters, [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
''R v Peters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 118: Line 118:
</ref>
</ref>


An accused who feels under pressure to plead guilty is not generally enough to vitiate voluntariness. It is expected that a persons facing serious charges will feel pressure at the time of plea.<ref>R v Carty, [http://canlii.ca/t/290vf 2010 ONCA 237] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} -- Accused states "I think it is the best way."</ref>
An accused who feels under pressure to plead guilty is not generally enough to vitiate voluntariness. It is expected that a persons facing serious charges will feel pressure at the time of plea.<ref>''R v Carty'', [http://canlii.ca/t/290vf 2010 ONCA 237] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} -- Accused states "I think it is the best way."</ref>


Death threats are sufficient to vitiate voluntariness on a guilty plea.<ref>
Death threats are sufficient to vitiate voluntariness on a guilty plea.<ref>
Line 124: Line 124:


A judge is not obliged to inquire into the motive for a guilty plea.<ref>
A judge is not obliged to inquire into the motive for a guilty plea.<ref>
R v Khanfoussi, [http://canlii.ca/t/2czj5 2010 QCCQ 8687] (CanLII), [2010] J.Q. No.10303 (QL){{perQCCQ|Healy J}}</ref>
''R v Khanfoussi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2czj5 2010 QCCQ 8687] (CanLII), [2010] J.Q. No.10303 (QL){{perQCCQ|Healy J}}</ref>


Guilty plea motivated by a desire to avoid tougher sentence will not be grounds of striking the plea.<ref>  
Guilty plea motivated by a desire to avoid tougher sentence will not be grounds of striking the plea.<ref>  
Line 143: Line 143:


In all, the court must simply be satisfied that the accused (1) understands the process, (2) can communicate with counsel, and (3) be able to make a conscious choice" regardless of whether it is in their best interest.<ref>
In all, the court must simply be satisfied that the accused (1) understands the process, (2) can communicate with counsel, and (3) be able to make a conscious choice" regardless of whether it is in their best interest.<ref>
R v Henneberry, [http://canlii.ca/t/h566k 2017 NSCA 71] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}}{{at|25}} ("This standard only requires that a court need be satisfied the accused understands the process, can communicate with counsel, and be able to make a conscious choice.  It need not be a choice that is objectively wise, rational or necessarily in the accused’s best interests.")
''R v Henneberry'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h566k 2017 NSCA 71] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}}{{at|25}} ("This standard only requires that a court need be satisfied the accused understands the process, can communicate with counsel, and be able to make a conscious choice.  It need not be a choice that is objectively wise, rational or necessarily in the accused’s best interests.")
</ref>
</ref>


Line 149: Line 149:


===Equivocation===
===Equivocation===
Any conditional guilty plea, such as admission of guilt only where a particular outcome be granted, is not a guilty plea at all.<ref> R v Lucas, (1983), 9 CCC (3d) 71, [http://canlii.ca/t/gd8rj 1983 CanLII 3600] (ON CA){{perONCA|Martin JA}} (3:0) at p. 75 ("A conditional plea of guilty is unknown to our law")</ref>
Any conditional guilty plea, such as admission of guilt only where a particular outcome be granted, is not a guilty plea at all.<ref> ''R v Lucas'', (1983), 9 CCC (3d) 71, [http://canlii.ca/t/gd8rj 1983 CanLII 3600] (ON CA){{perONCA|Martin JA}} (3:0) at p. 75 ("A conditional plea of guilty is unknown to our law")</ref>


A guilty plea is considered conditional where the plea was done on advice of the lawyer who was mistaken to believe that an appeal of conviction and ruling would be possible after the plea was entered.<ref> R v Fegan, [http://canlii.ca/t/g16wp 1993 CanLII 8607] (ON CA), (1993) 80 CCC 3d 356{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} (3:0)</ref>
A guilty plea is considered conditional where the plea was done on advice of the lawyer who was mistaken to believe that an appeal of conviction and ruling would be possible after the plea was entered.<ref> ''R v Fegan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g16wp 1993 CanLII 8607] (ON CA), (1993) 80 CCC 3d 356{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} (3:0)</ref>
It is also conditional where the crown offers to allow a withdraw of a guilty plea if the judge does not adopt the joint recommendation.<ref>R v Kleinsteuber, [http://canlii.ca/t/1dzrd 1997 CanLII 3567] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Esson JA}} (3:0) at 4-6</ref>
It is also conditional where the crown offers to allow a withdraw of a guilty plea if the judge does not adopt the joint recommendation.<ref>''R v Kleinsteuber'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1dzrd 1997 CanLII 3567] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Esson JA}} (3:0) at 4-6</ref>


A withdraw could be supported where the accused asserts a potential valid defence.<ref>
A withdraw could be supported where the accused asserts a potential valid defence.<ref>
R v Hunt, [http://canlii.ca/t/1glq3 2004 ABCA 88] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 15<br>
''R v Hunt'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1glq3 2004 ABCA 88] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 15<br>
R v Peters, [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
''R v Peters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
c.f. R v Rulli, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f8mp 2011 ONCA 18] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)</ref>
c.f. ''R v Rulli'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2f8mp 2011 ONCA 18] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)</ref>


A guilty plea made merely to gain some sort of perceived advantage is not enough to invalidate the plea.<ref>
A guilty plea made merely to gain some sort of perceived advantage is not enough to invalidate the plea.<ref>
R v Hughes, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dkxz 1987 ABCA 69] (CanLII), (1987), 76 A.R. 294 (C.A.){{perABCA|McClung JA}} (3:0)<br>  
''R v Hughes'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dkxz 1987 ABCA 69] (CanLII), (1987), 76 A.R. 294 (C.A.){{perABCA|McClung JA}} (3:0)<br>  
R v Burden [http://canlii.ca/t/6jcz 1996 CanLII 558] (ON CA), (1996), 90 O.A.C. 169 (Ont.C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Burden [http://canlii.ca/t/6jcz 1996 CanLII 558] (ON CA), (1996), 90 O.A.C. 169 (Ont.C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 169: Line 169:


Where the charges are read personally to the accused before the plea, it will tend to "demonstrate the unequivocal character of the plea".<ref>
Where the charges are read personally to the accused before the plea, it will tend to "demonstrate the unequivocal character of the plea".<ref>
R v Campbell, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6r9t 2014 NBPC 36] (CanLII){{perNBPC|Cloutier J}}, at para 40<br>
''R v Campbell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6r9t 2014 NBPC 36] (CanLII){{perNBPC|Cloutier J}}, at para 40<br>
R v T. (R.), (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834] (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0), at pp. 520-521<br>
R v T. (R.), (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834] (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0), at pp. 520-521<br>
R v Eastmond, [http://canlii.ca/t/1f7kk 2001 CanLII 7498] (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 4353 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0\){{at|6}}<br>
''R v Eastmond'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1f7kk 2001 CanLII 7498] (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 4353 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0\){{at|6}}<br>
R v Moser, [http://canlii.ca/t/1wcwt 2002 CanLII 49649] (ON SC), (2002), 163 CCC (3d) 286 (Ont. S.C.){{perONSC|Hill J}}{{at|32}}<br>
''R v Moser'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wcwt 2002 CanLII 49649] (ON SC), (2002), 163 CCC (3d) 286 (Ont. S.C.){{perONSC|Hill J}}{{at|32}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 180: Line 180:
A guilty plea that is informed has two components:<ref>
A guilty plea that is informed has two components:<ref>
R v RT (1992), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834] (ON CA), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0) at para 14<br>
R v RT (1992), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834] (ON CA), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0) at para 14<br>
R v Quick, [http://canlii.ca/t/gn6d5 2016 ONCA 95] (CanLII){{perONCA|Laskin JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Quick'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gn6d5 2016 ONCA 95] (CanLII){{perONCA|Laskin JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Chen, [http://canlii.ca/t/hp3vj 2017 ONCA 946] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0\){{at|45}}<br>
''R v Chen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hp3vj 2017 ONCA 946] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0\){{at|45}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
# the accused must be aware of the nature of the allegations; and
# the accused must be aware of the nature of the allegations; and
Line 191: Line 191:


A guilty plea is informed where the accused has been provided with disclosure of the relevant facts of the case against him.<ref>
A guilty plea is informed where the accused has been provided with disclosure of the relevant facts of the case against him.<ref>
R v Peters, [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
''R v Peters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
</ref>
</ref>


A guilty plea will be found not to be informed where there is "an objective basis to convinced a court that there is a responsible possibility that a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the [accused] would have refused to plead guilty".<ref>
A guilty plea will be found not to be informed where there is "an objective basis to convinced a court that there is a responsible possibility that a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the [accused] would have refused to plead guilty".<ref>
R v White, [http://canlii.ca/t/gnzpz 2016 NSCA 20] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Bryson JA}}, at para 41<br>
''R v White'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gnzpz 2016 NSCA 20] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Bryson JA}}, at para 41<br>
</ref>
</ref>


The accused need only be aware of the “essential facts” to make out the charge and not the full extent of the details to plea guilty.<ref>
The accused need only be aware of the “essential facts” to make out the charge and not the full extent of the details to plea guilty.<ref>
R v Raymond, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dvfs 2009 QCCA 808] (CanLII){{perQCCA|Morin JA}} (3:0) at paras 100 and 114
''R v Raymond'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dvfs 2009 QCCA 808] (CanLII){{perQCCA|Morin JA}} (3:0) at paras 100 and 114
</ref>
</ref>
This follows the principle that guilty plea is only a bare admission and not acceptance of all surrounding circumstances.<ref>  
This follows the principle that guilty plea is only a bare admission and not acceptance of all surrounding circumstances.<ref>  
Line 207: Line 207:


There is no need that there be an agreed statement of facts.<ref>
There is no need that there be an agreed statement of facts.<ref>
R v Campbell, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6r9t 2014 NBPC 36] (CanLII){{perNBPC|Cloutier J}}{{at|43}}<br>
''R v Campbell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6r9t 2014 NBPC 36] (CanLII){{perNBPC|Cloutier J}}{{at|43}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 222: Line 222:
The accused has a right to know the immediate consequence of the gulity plea. This includes "the realization that convictions would flow" and an appreciation of the nature of the potential penalties.<ref>
The accused has a right to know the immediate consequence of the gulity plea. This includes "the realization that convictions would flow" and an appreciation of the nature of the potential penalties.<ref>
R v T. (R.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834] (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0) at para 37<br>
R v T. (R.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834] (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0) at para 37<br>
R v Meehan, [http://canlii.ca/t/fwxz9 2013 ONSC 1782] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}}{{at|10}}<br>
''R v Meehan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwxz9 2013 ONSC 1782] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}}{{at|10}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
This does not include all possible consequences.<ref>
This does not include all possible consequences.<ref>
R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0), at 36<br> R v Raymond, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dvfs 2009 QCCA 808] (CanLII){{perQCCA|Morin JA}} (3:0) at para 114</ref>
''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0), at 36<br> ''R v Raymond'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dvfs 2009 QCCA 808] (CanLII){{perQCCA|Morin JA}} (3:0) at para 114</ref>


Lack of knowledge of the consequences of pleading guilty is not necessarily determinative.<ref>
Lack of knowledge of the consequences of pleading guilty is not necessarily determinative.<ref>
see R v Slobodan, [1993] AJ No 11 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/2d9f9 1993 ABCA 33] (CanLII){{perABCA|Fraser CJ}} (3:0)<br>
see ''R v Slobodan'', [1993] AJ No 11 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/2d9f9 1993 ABCA 33] (CanLII){{perABCA|Fraser CJ}} (3:0)<br>
R v Tyler, [http://canlii.ca/t/1qrd4 2007 BCCA 142] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Donald JA}} (3:0) <br>
''R v Tyler'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qrd4 2007 BCCA 142] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Donald JA}} (3:0) <br>
R v Hunt, [http://canlii.ca/t/1glq3 2004 ABCA 88] (CanLII){{perABCA|Whittmann JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Hunt'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1glq3 2004 ABCA 88] (CanLII){{perABCA|Whittmann JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v {{supra1|Hoang}} <br>
R v {{supra1|Hoang}} <br>
R v Fegan, [http://canlii.ca/t/g16wp 1993 CanLII 8607] (ON CA), (1993), 80 CCC (3d) 356 (Ont.C.A.){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Fegan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g16wp 1993 CanLII 8607] (ON CA), (1993), 80 CCC (3d) 356 (Ont.C.A.){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Claveau, [http://canlii.ca/t/57c0 2003 NBCA 52] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Deschênes JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Claveau'', [http://canlii.ca/t/57c0 2003 NBCA 52] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Deschênes JA}} (3:0)<br>
</ref>Instead, more seems to rely upon the impact on the decision, if the accused had been informed.<ref>R v Riley [http://canlii.ca/t/flqv9 2011 NSCA 52] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}} (3:0) at para 45</ref>
</ref>Instead, more seems to rely upon the impact on the decision, if the accused had been informed.<ref>R v Riley [http://canlii.ca/t/flqv9 2011 NSCA 52] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}} (3:0) at para 45</ref>


An awareness of the effect and consequences of a guilty plea does not include knowledge of what the result of the sentencing will be".<ref>
An awareness of the effect and consequences of a guilty plea does not include knowledge of what the result of the sentencing will be".<ref>
R v Peters, [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
''R v Peters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 243: Line 243:
R v Tyler [http://canlii.ca/t/1qrd4 2007 BCCA 142] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Donald JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Tyler [http://canlii.ca/t/1qrd4 2007 BCCA 142] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Donald JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Nersysyan [http://canlii.ca/t/1l0bh 2005 QCCA 606] (CanLII){{TheCourtQCCA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Nersysyan [http://canlii.ca/t/1l0bh 2005 QCCA 606] (CanLII){{TheCourtQCCA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Meehan, [http://canlii.ca/t/fwxz9 2013 ONSC 1782] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}}<br>
''R v Meehan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwxz9 2013 ONSC 1782] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 250: Line 250:
'''Advice'''<br>
'''Advice'''<br>
Inaccurate advice can render a plea invalid.<ref>
Inaccurate advice can render a plea invalid.<ref>
e.g. R v Tzeng, [http://canlii.ca/t/1qst7 2007 CanLII 6935] (ON SC), [2007] OJ No 878 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Durno J}} <br>
e.g. ''R v Tzeng'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qst7 2007 CanLII 6935] (ON SC), [2007] OJ No 878 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Durno J}} <br>
{{supra1|Meehan}} at paras 12 to 13<br>
{{supra1|Meehan}} at paras 12 to 13<br>
</ref> This can include erroneous advice as to the available sentences.<ref>
</ref> This can include erroneous advice as to the available sentences.<ref>
R v Armstrong, [http://canlii.ca/t/6hqg 1997 CanLII 1487] (ON CA), [1997] OJ No 45{{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)
''R v Armstrong'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6hqg 1997 CanLII 1487] (ON CA), [1997] OJ No 45{{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)
</ref> On a lack of awareness of certain non-criminal sanctions that flow from the conviction.<ref>
</ref> On a lack of awareness of certain non-criminal sanctions that flow from the conviction.<ref>
e.g. R v Stewart, [http://canlii.ca/t/1cc4b 2002 CanLII 16206] (ON SC), (2002), 33 M.V.R. (4th) 103 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Glass J}}<br>
e.g. ''R v Stewart'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1cc4b 2002 CanLII 16206] (ON SC), (2002), 33 M.V.R. (4th) 103 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Glass J}}<br>
R v Fells, [http://canlii.ca/t/6j75 2003 CanLII 31609] (ON SC), [2003] O.J. NO. 1392 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Kruzick J}} - unaware of effect of a discharge
''R v Fells'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6j75 2003 CanLII 31609] (ON SC), [2003] O.J. NO. 1392 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Kruzick J}} - unaware of effect of a discharge
</ref>  
</ref>  


It is not necessary that ''all'' consequences are canvassed, in particular "surprising" consequences will not permit a new trial.<ref>
It is not necessary that ''all'' consequences are canvassed, in particular "surprising" consequences will not permit a new trial.<ref>
R v Closs, [http://canlii.ca/t/6gnz 1998 CanLII 1921] (ON CA), [1998] OJ No 172{{perONCA|Carthy JA}} (“There are many negative consequences of having a criminal conviction and it cannot be expected that these will all be explained to an accused prior to a plea; nor should the convicted person expect the judicial system to provide a fresh start when a surprising consequence of the conviction is encountered.”)
''R v Closs'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6gnz 1998 CanLII 1921] (ON CA), [1998] OJ No 172{{perONCA|Carthy JA}} (“There are many negative consequences of having a criminal conviction and it cannot be expected that these will all be explained to an accused prior to a plea; nor should the convicted person expect the judicial system to provide a fresh start when a surprising consequence of the conviction is encountered.”)
</ref>
</ref>
{{Reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|2}}
Line 266: Line 266:
===Miscarriage of Justice===
===Miscarriage of Justice===
An accused seeking to withdraw a guilty plea should show that a miscarriage of justice would result if the plea is not withdrawn.<ref>
An accused seeking to withdraw a guilty plea should show that a miscarriage of justice would result if the plea is not withdrawn.<ref>
R v Peters, [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
''R v Peters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 274: Line 274:


Unfairness would include where the accused was pressured or extorted into pleading guilty.<ref>
Unfairness would include where the accused was pressured or extorted into pleading guilty.<ref>
R v Lamoureux, (1984) 13 CCC (3d) 101 (QCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbf09 1984 CanLII 3492] (QC CA){{perQCCA|Rothman JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Lamoureux'', (1984) 13 CCC (3d) 101 (QCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbf09 1984 CanLII 3492] (QC CA){{perQCCA|Rothman JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Temple [1995] BCJ No 331 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/1dcjb 1994 CanLII 3056] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Taylor JA}}<br>
R v Temple [1995] BCJ No 331 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/1dcjb 1994 CanLII 3056] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Taylor JA}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 287: Line 287:


Counsel who gives wrong legal advice may be a basis for there to be a miscarriage of justice.<ref>
Counsel who gives wrong legal advice may be a basis for there to be a miscarriage of justice.<ref>
R v White, [http://canlii.ca/t/26dw9 2009 NSSC 313] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Cacchione J}} at para 10<br>
''R v White'', [http://canlii.ca/t/26dw9 2009 NSSC 313] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Cacchione J}} at para 10<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 297: Line 297:
Thibodeau v The Queen, [http://canlii.ca/t/22tmv 1955 CanLII 57] (SCC), [1955] SCR 646{{perSCC|Cartwright J}} (5:0) <br>
Thibodeau v The Queen, [http://canlii.ca/t/22tmv 1955 CanLII 57] (SCC), [1955] SCR 646{{perSCC|Cartwright J}} (5:0) <br>
Adgey v The Queen, [1975] 2 SCR 426, 13 CCC (2d) 177, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC){{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2)<br>
Adgey v The Queen, [1975] 2 SCR 426, 13 CCC (2d) 177, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC){{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2)<br>
R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0), at paras 18, 21 to 24<br>
''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0), at paras 18, 21 to 24<br>
See:  R v Lamoureux, (1984), 13 CCC (3d) 101 (Que. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbf09 1984 CanLII 3492] (QC CA){{perQCCA|Rothman JA}} (3:0)<br>  
See:  ''R v Lamoureux'', (1984), 13 CCC (3d) 101 (Que. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbf09 1984 CanLII 3492] (QC CA){{perQCCA|Rothman JA}} (3:0)<br>  
R v Antoine (1984) 40 C.R. (3d) 375 (Que. C.A.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
R v Antoine (1984) 40 C.R. (3d) 375 (Que. C.A.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 309: Line 309:
</ref>  
</ref>  
It is nonetheless recommended that an inquiry be made into the 606(1.1) criteria.<ref>
It is nonetheless recommended that an inquiry be made into the 606(1.1) criteria.<ref>
R v Gates, 2010 BCCA 378{{NOCANLII}} at paras 21-22<br>
''R v Gates'', 2010 BCCA 378{{NOCANLII}} at paras 21-22<br>
R v Leiviska, [http://canlii.ca/t/fkr1s 2011 BCCA 145] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Chiasson JA}}{{at|25}}<br>
''R v Leiviska'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fkr1s 2011 BCCA 145] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Chiasson JA}}{{at|25}}<br>
JGT{{supra}}{{at|19}}<br>
JGT{{supra}}{{at|19}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 323: Line 323:


Where an accused is represented by counsel, the judge may presume that counsel canvassed the elements under s. 606(1.1).<ref>
Where an accused is represented by counsel, the judge may presume that counsel canvassed the elements under s. 606(1.1).<ref>
R v Peters, [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
''R v Peters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 11<br>
</ref>
</ref>


The extent of the inquiry will vary with the seriousness of the charge.<ref>
The extent of the inquiry will vary with the seriousness of the charge.<ref>
R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 21
''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 21
</ref>
</ref>


Where the plea is entered in open court it is presumed valid.<ref>
Where the plea is entered in open court it is presumed valid.<ref>
See below citing R v Eide, [http://canlii.ca/t/fm5rg 2011 SKCA 81] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Klebuc JA}} (3:0) at para 8</ref>
See below citing ''R v Eide'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fm5rg 2011 SKCA 81] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Klebuc JA}} (3:0) at para 8</ref>


When entered with counsel it is presumed that the accused was "fully familiar with the circumstances surrounding the offence and to have been aware of the consequences of entering a guilty plea.<ref>
When entered with counsel it is presumed that the accused was "fully familiar with the circumstances surrounding the offence and to have been aware of the consequences of entering a guilty plea.<ref>
R v Paiero, (1986), 71 NSR (2d) 268 (C.A.){{NOCANLII}}</ref>
''R v Paiero'', (1986), 71 NSR (2d) 268 (C.A.){{NOCANLII}}</ref>
The presumption is stronger where it is done after consulting with experienced counsel.<ref>
The presumption is stronger where it is done after consulting with experienced counsel.<ref>
R v Swanson [http://canlii.ca/t/53zp 2000 BCCA 177] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Prowse JA}} (3:0) at para 24</ref>
R v Swanson [http://canlii.ca/t/53zp 2000 BCCA 177] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Prowse JA}} (3:0) at para 24</ref>
Line 347: Line 347:
Once a plea has been made it is considered formal proof of the offence committed. There is no burden on the Crown to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>
Once a plea has been made it is considered formal proof of the offence committed. There is no burden on the Crown to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>
R v C.(W.B.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1cx5m 2000 CanLII 5659] (ON CA), (2000), 142 CCC 3d 490 (Ont.C.A.){{perONCA|Wiler JA}} (2:1)</ref> It is considered admission of the essential legal ingredients to the offence.<ref>
R v C.(W.B.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1cx5m 2000 CanLII 5659] (ON CA), (2000), 142 CCC 3d 490 (Ont.C.A.){{perONCA|Wiler JA}} (2:1)</ref> It is considered admission of the essential legal ingredients to the offence.<ref>
R v Gardiner, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpcq 1982 CanLII 30] (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 368{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (4:3) <br>
''R v Gardiner'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpcq 1982 CanLII 30] (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 368{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (4:3) <br>
R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 17</ref> However, a plea is not formal proof of the underlying facts. <ref>R v Berry (1957) 118 CCC 55 (Ont.CA), [http://canlii.ca/t/htx5l 1957 CanLII 505] (ON CA){{perONCA|Roach JA}} (5:0)</ref>
''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 17</ref> However, a plea is not formal proof of the underlying facts. <ref>R v Berry (1957) 118 CCC 55 (Ont.CA), [http://canlii.ca/t/htx5l 1957 CanLII 505] (ON CA){{perONCA|Roach JA}} (5:0)</ref>


A guilty plea is considered the end of the challenge to the criminal charge against the accused.
A guilty plea is considered the end of the challenge to the criminal charge against the accused.
<ref>
<ref>
R v Bowman, [http://canlii.ca/t/21863 2008 BCCA 410] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Lowry JA}} (3:0)<br>  
''R v Bowman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/21863 2008 BCCA 410] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Lowry JA}} (3:0)<br>  
R v Duong, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nq1g 2006 BCCA 325] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Rowles JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Duong'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nq1g 2006 BCCA 325] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Rowles JA}} (3:0)<br>
</ref>  
</ref>  
In pleading guilty, the accused is consenting to a conviction being entered without a trial.<ref>
In pleading guilty, the accused is consenting to a conviction being entered without a trial.<ref>
Line 359: Line 359:
This also means that the guilty plea will extinguish any procedural rights, rights of appeal or ability to challenge the ruling of guilt.<ref>
This also means that the guilty plea will extinguish any procedural rights, rights of appeal or ability to challenge the ruling of guilt.<ref>
Korponay v Canada (Attorney General), [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpbj 1982 CanLII 12] (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 41{{perSCC|Lamer J}} (9:0) at p. 49<br>
Korponay v Canada (Attorney General), [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpbj 1982 CanLII 12] (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 41{{perSCC|Lamer J}} (9:0) at p. 49<br>
R v Richard, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr67 1996 CanLII 185] (SCC), [1996] 3 SCR 525{{perSCC|La Forest J}} (9:0)<br>
''R v Richard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr67 1996 CanLII 185] (SCC), [1996] 3 SCR 525{{perSCC|La Forest J}} (9:0)<br>
Brady v US, 397 US 742 (1970) at p. 748<br>
Brady v US, 397 US 742 (1970) at p. 748<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 368: Line 368:
Where a Charter application fails and there remains no further defence, the proper procedure to preserve the right of appeal is to admit the facts alleged and invite the judge to convict.<ref>See  
Where a Charter application fails and there remains no further defence, the proper procedure to preserve the right of appeal is to admit the facts alleged and invite the judge to convict.<ref>See  
R v Duong{{ibid}} at para 8<br>
R v Duong{{ibid}} at para 8<br>
R v Carter, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fw4s 2003 BCCA 632] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Finch CJ}} at para 6<br>  
''R v Carter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fw4s 2003 BCCA 632] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Finch CJ}} at para 6<br>  
R v Webster, [http://canlii.ca/t/21ls8 2008 BCCA 458] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}} (3:0) at paras 19-22 <br>
''R v Webster'', [http://canlii.ca/t/21ls8 2008 BCCA 458] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}} (3:0) at paras 19-22 <br>
c.f. R v Liberatore, [http://canlii.ca/t/gfl1x 2014 NSCA 109] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Fichaud JA}} (3:0) at para 13<br>
c.f. ''R v Liberatore'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gfl1x 2014 NSCA 109] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Fichaud JA}} (3:0) at para 13<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 377: Line 377:
==Withdrawing a Guilty Plea==
==Withdrawing a Guilty Plea==
A guilty plea can be expunged by either the trial judge or by an appellate court.<ref>
A guilty plea can be expunged by either the trial judge or by an appellate court.<ref>
R v Leonard, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twnh 2007 SKCA 128] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Richards JA}} (3:0) at para 19
''R v Leonard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1twnh 2007 SKCA 128] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Richards JA}} (3:0) at para 19
</ref>
</ref>


Line 387: Line 387:
</ref>
</ref>
Likewise, an appellate court cannot quash a conviction where the guilty plea was valid.<ref>
Likewise, an appellate court cannot quash a conviction where the guilty plea was valid.<ref>
R v Arcand, [http://canlii.ca/t/1l719 2000 SKCA 60] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Cameron JA}} at para 3 ("the law empowers an appellate court to expunge a guilty plea ... and to quash the resulting conviction, but only on valid grounds. It is not within the power of an appellate court to expunge a voluntary, unequivocal, and informed plea of guilty, made by a person unaware of the nature of the allegations, the effect of the plea, and its consequences")<br>
''R v Arcand'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l719 2000 SKCA 60] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Cameron JA}} at para 3 ("the law empowers an appellate court to expunge a guilty plea ... and to quash the resulting conviction, but only on valid grounds. It is not within the power of an appellate court to expunge a voluntary, unequivocal, and informed plea of guilty, made by a person unaware of the nature of the allegations, the effect of the plea, and its consequences")<br>
</ref>
</ref>


The accused "bears the onus of demonstrating that the plea is not valid".<Ref
The accused "bears the onus of demonstrating that the plea is not valid".<Ref
R v Eastmond, [2001] Carswell Ont 3911 (O.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1f7kk 2001 CanLII 7498] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0) at para 6<br>
''R v Eastmond'', [2001] Carswell Ont 3911 (O.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1f7kk 2001 CanLII 7498] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0) at para 6<br>
see also, R v Clermont (1996) [http://canlii.ca/t/234d8 1996 CanLII 10244] (NS CA), 150 NSR (2d) 264 (NSCA){{perNSCA|Clarke CJ}}
see also, R v Clermont (1996) [http://canlii.ca/t/234d8 1996 CanLII 10244] (NS CA), 150 NSR (2d) 264 (NSCA){{perNSCA|Clarke CJ}}
</ref>
</ref>


A plea in open court by an accused represented by counsel is presumptively valid.<ref>
A plea in open court by an accused represented by counsel is presumptively valid.<ref>
R v Eide, [http://canlii.ca/t/fm5rg 2011 SKCA 81] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Klebuc JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Eide'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fm5rg 2011 SKCA 81] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Klebuc JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Swanson, [http://canlii.ca/t/53zp 2000 BCCA 177] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Prowse JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Swanson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/53zp 2000 BCCA 177] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Prowse JA}} (3:0)<br>
</ref> Where the accused is represented by counsel there is a strong presumption of validity.<ref>
</ref> Where the accused is represented by counsel there is a strong presumption of validity.<ref>
R v Laffin, [http://canlii.ca/t/22htw 2009 NSCA 19] (CanLII), [2009] NSJ No. 66{{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} (3:0) at 44<br>  
''R v Laffin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22htw 2009 NSCA 19] (CanLII), [2009] NSJ No. 66{{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} (3:0) at 44<br>  
R v Eizenga, [http://canlii.ca/t/2fmpr 2011 ONCA 113] (CanLII), [2011] OJ No 524{{perONCA|Weiler JA}} (3:0) at para 4<br>
''R v Eizenga'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2fmpr 2011 ONCA 113] (CanLII), [2011] OJ No 524{{perONCA|Weiler JA}} (3:0) at para 4<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 414: Line 414:
</ref>
</ref>
This is on the standard of balance of probabilities.<ref>
This is on the standard of balance of probabilities.<ref>
R v Eizenga, [http://canlii.ca/t/2fmpr 2011 ONCA 113] (CanLII){{perONCA|Weiler JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Eizenga'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2fmpr 2011 ONCA 113] (CanLII){{perONCA|Weiler JA}} (3:0)<br>
</ref>
</ref>


An accused represented by counsel is presumed to be familiar with the circumstances surrounding the offence and the consequences of the plea.<ref>
An accused represented by counsel is presumed to be familiar with the circumstances surrounding the offence and the consequences of the plea.<ref>
R v Paiero, [1986] NSJ No. 98 (NSCA){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Paiero'', [1986] NSJ No. 98 (NSCA){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v McKinnon'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1rz66 2007 ABQB 432] (CanLII){{perABQB|Belzil J}} at para 54<br>
''R v McKinnon'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1rz66 2007 ABQB 432] (CanLII){{perABQB|Belzil J}} at para 54<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Public policy suggests that a guilty plea should not be withdrawn "except in exceptional circumstances".<ref>
Public policy suggests that a guilty plea should not be withdrawn "except in exceptional circumstances".<ref>
R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 25</ref>
''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 25</ref>
Both parties benefit from guilty pleas. The accused is given the mitigating effect of the plea and will sometimes have other charges withdrawn. The Crown and courts will forgo the costs associated with having a trial. The validity of a guilty plea promotes essential values of the administration of justice.<ref>
Both parties benefit from guilty pleas. The accused is given the mitigating effect of the plea and will sometimes have other charges withdrawn. The Crown and courts will forgo the costs associated with having a trial. The validity of a guilty plea promotes essential values of the administration of justice.<ref>
Hoang{{ibid}} at para 25-27</ref>
Hoang{{ibid}} at para 25-27</ref>
Line 455: Line 455:
==Discretion of Trial Judge to Rescind Guilty Plea==
==Discretion of Trial Judge to Rescind Guilty Plea==
The trial judge may rescind a guilty plea at his discretion on the basis of the Adgey factors including: <ref> <br>
The trial judge may rescind a guilty plea at his discretion on the basis of the Adgey factors including: <ref> <br>
R v Adgey, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2) at para 49<br>
''R v Adgey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2) at para 49<br>
R v Joseph, [http://canlii.ca/t/5k4t 2000 BCSC 1891] (CanLII), [2000] BCJ No. 2850 (Q.L.)(B.C.S.C.){{perBCSC|Taylor J}} at 48<br>
''R v Joseph'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5k4t 2000 BCSC 1891] (CanLII), [2000] BCJ No. 2850 (Q.L.)(B.C.S.C.){{perBCSC|Taylor J}} at 48<br>
R v Stockley, [http://canlii.ca/t/2467r 2009 NLCA 38] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Roberts JA}} (3:0) at para 7<br>
''R v Stockley'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2467r 2009 NLCA 38] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Roberts JA}} (3:0) at para 7<br>
{{supra1|Nevin}} at para 20<br>
{{supra1|Nevin}} at para 20<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 466: Line 466:
# whether the accused had experience in the criminal justice system (usually shown by a criminal record)<ref>{{supra1|Joseph}} at 48</ref>
# whether the accused had experience in the criminal justice system (usually shown by a criminal record)<ref>{{supra1|Joseph}} at 48</ref>
# the adequacy of the judge's inquiry into the plea<ref>
# the adequacy of the judge's inquiry into the plea<ref>
R v Jack, [http://canlii.ca/t/fvm4b 2012 BCSC 1991] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Fitch J}} at para 64<br>
''R v Jack'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvm4b 2012 BCSC 1991] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Fitch J}} at para 64<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 479: Line 479:
{{seealso|Appeals}}
{{seealso|Appeals}}
An appellate Court may expunge a guilty plea and quash a conviction on "valid grounds".<ref>
An appellate Court may expunge a guilty plea and quash a conviction on "valid grounds".<ref>
R v Adgey, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426 (S.C.C.){{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2)<br>
''R v Adgey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426 (S.C.C.){{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2)<br>
''R v RT'', (1992), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834] (ON CA), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0) - Doherty stated that “[a]n accused who is convicted upon his or her plea of guilty may appeal that conviction.  An appellate court will permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea and quash the consequent conviction where there are "valid grounds" for doing so: .... No finite list of all "valid grounds" can be provided.”
''R v RT'', (1992), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p793 1992 CanLII 2834] (ON CA), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} (3:0) - Doherty stated that “[a]n accused who is convicted upon his or her plea of guilty may appeal that conviction.  An appellate court will permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea and quash the consequent conviction where there are "valid grounds" for doing so: .... No finite list of all "valid grounds" can be provided.”
</ref>
</ref>


The onus is upon the appellant to establish that the plea was invalid on a balance of probabilities.<ref>
The onus is upon the appellant to establish that the plea was invalid on a balance of probabilities.<ref>
R v Easterbrook, [http://canlii.ca/t/1k6vk 2005 CanLII 12676] (ON CA), [2005] OJ No. 1486 (ONCA){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Easterbrook'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1k6vk 2005 CanLII 12676] (ON CA), [2005] OJ No. 1486 (ONCA){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)<br>
</ref>
</ref>


The appellate court may ''not'' expunge a plea that is "voluntary, unequivocal and informed guilty plea made by a person aware of the nature of the allegations, the effect of a plea and its consequences".<ref>
The appellate court may ''not'' expunge a plea that is "voluntary, unequivocal and informed guilty plea made by a person aware of the nature of the allegations, the effect of a plea and its consequences".<ref>
R v Kinney, [http://canlii.ca/t/fnk54 2011 SKCA 122] (CanLII), 377 Sask.R. 107{{perSKCA|Caldwell JA}} (3:0\){{at|2}}<br>
''R v Kinney'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fnk54 2011 SKCA 122] (CanLII), 377 Sask.R. 107{{perSKCA|Caldwell JA}} (3:0\){{at|2}}<br>
R v Arcand, [http://canlii.ca/t/1l719 2000 SKCA 60] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Cameron JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Arcand'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l719 2000 SKCA 60] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Cameron JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v T.(R.){{supra}} at para 14<br>
R v T.(R.){{supra}} at para 14<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 500: Line 500:
===Grounds===
===Grounds===
An appellate court has the ability to remove a guilty plea and quash a conviction where there are "valid grounds" to do so. What constitutes valid grounds is open-ended and can include a variety of situations.<ref>  
An appellate court has the ability to remove a guilty plea and quash a conviction where there are "valid grounds" to do so. What constitutes valid grounds is open-ended and can include a variety of situations.<ref>  
R v Taillefer, Duguay, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g992 2003 SCC 70] (CanLII), [2003] S.C.J. No. 75{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (9:0) at 431 <br>
''R v Taillefer'', Duguay, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g992 2003 SCC 70] (CanLII), [2003] S.C.J. No. 75{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (9:0) at 431 <br>
R v Adgey, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426 (S.C.C.){{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2)<br>
''R v Adgey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1twzm 1973 CanLII 37] (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426 (S.C.C.){{perSCC|Dickson J}} (3:2)<br>
Queen v Bamsey [http://canlii.ca/t/21vc2 1960 CanLII 35] (SCC), (1960), SCR 294{{perSCC|Ritchie J}} (7:0) at p. 298[http://canlii.ca/t/21vc2]<br>
Queen v Bamsey [http://canlii.ca/t/21vc2 1960 CanLII 35] (SCC), (1960), SCR 294{{perSCC|Ritchie J}} (7:0) at p. 298[http://canlii.ca/t/21vc2]<br>
R v Porter [1994] [http://canlii.ca/t/1mqmv 1994 CanLII 4019] (NS CA), NSJ No.304{{perNSCA|Pugsley JA}} (2:1){{at|25}}<br>
R v Porter [1994] [http://canlii.ca/t/1mqmv 1994 CanLII 4019] (NS CA), NSJ No.304{{perNSCA|Pugsley JA}} (2:1){{at|25}}<br>
Line 508: Line 508:
There must be "valid grounds" to withdraw a guilty plea.<ref>{{supra1|Adgey}} at p. 431</ref>
There must be "valid grounds" to withdraw a guilty plea.<ref>{{supra1|Adgey}} at p. 431</ref>
This includes where there is:<ref>  
This includes where there is:<ref>  
see R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 30 ("the appellant did not appreciate the nature of the charge, or the appellant did not intend to admit that he was guilty of it; or where upon the admitted facts, the appellant could not in law have been convicted of the offence charged")<br>
see ''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 30 ("the appellant did not appreciate the nature of the charge, or the appellant did not intend to admit that he was guilty of it; or where upon the admitted facts, the appellant could not in law have been convicted of the offence charged")<br>
''R v McLaughlin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx61d 2013 NBCA 28] (CanLII){{TheCourtNBCA}} (3:0)
''R v McLaughlin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx61d 2013 NBCA 28] (CanLII){{TheCourtNBCA}} (3:0)
</ref>
</ref>
Line 516: Line 516:
** there was a serious question as to the accused's mental state at the time of entering the plea
** there was a serious question as to the accused's mental state at the time of entering the plea
* improper inducements or threats by the police, defence counsel, or the trial judge<ref>
* improper inducements or threats by the police, defence counsel, or the trial judge<ref>
see R v Nevin, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nx31 2006 NSCA 72] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Bateman JA}} (3:0)<br>
see ''R v Nevin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nx31 2006 NSCA 72] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Bateman JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Lamoureux, (1984), 13 CCC (3d) 101 (Que.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbf09 1984 CanLII 3492] (QC CA){{perQCCA|Rothman JA}} (3:0)<br>  
''R v Lamoureux'', (1984), 13 CCC (3d) 101 (Que.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbf09 1984 CanLII 3492] (QC CA){{perQCCA|Rothman JA}} (3:0)<br>  
R v Laperrière [http://canlii.ca/t/1nk99 1995 CanLII 4706] (QC CA), (1995), 101 CCC (3d) 462{{perQCCA|Bisson JA}} aff'd [1996] 2 SCR 284{{perSCC|La Forest J}} (7:0)<br>
R v Laperrière [http://canlii.ca/t/1nk99 1995 CanLII 4706] (QC CA), (1995), 101 CCC (3d) 462{{perQCCA|Bisson JA}} aff'd [1996] 2 SCR 284{{perSCC|La Forest J}} (7:0)<br>
R v Djekic [http://canlii.ca/t/1fb9n 2000 CanLII 16822] (ON CA), (2000), 147 CCC (3d) 572 (Ont.C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)<br>  
R v Djekic [http://canlii.ca/t/1fb9n 2000 CanLII 16822] (ON CA), (2000), 147 CCC (3d) 572 (Ont.C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)<br>  
Line 526: Line 526:
</ref>
</ref>
* the accused plea guilty to get some short term advantage<ref>
* the accused plea guilty to get some short term advantage<ref>
R v Tyler, [http://canlii.ca/t/1qrd4 2007 BCCA 142] (CanLII), 218 CCC (3d) 400 (BCCA){{perBCCA|Donald JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Tyler'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qrd4 2007 BCCA 142] (CanLII), 218 CCC (3d) 400 (BCCA){{perBCCA|Donald JA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Meehan, [http://canlii.ca/t/fwxz9 2013 ONSC 1782] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}} at para 19<br>
''R v Meehan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwxz9 2013 ONSC 1782] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}} at para 19<br>
</ref>
</ref>


A further situation where the plea can be withdrawn is where there is a miscarriage of justice.<ref>
A further situation where the plea can be withdrawn is where there is a miscarriage of justice.<ref>
R v Gates, 2010 BCCA 378, 293 BCAC 243{{NOCANLII}} at para 2</ref> This includes where:
''R v Gates'', 2010 BCCA 378, 293 BCAC 243{{NOCANLII}} at para 2</ref> This includes where:
* the accused has been given wrong legal advice<ref>
* the accused has been given wrong legal advice<ref>
R v Armstrong, [http://canlii.ca/t/6hqg 1997 CanLII 1487] (ON CA), (1997) 33 WCB 2d 254 (ONCA){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0) - lawyer gave advice that D was able to get discharge when it was not available
''R v Armstrong'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6hqg 1997 CanLII 1487] (ON CA), (1997) 33 WCB 2d 254 (ONCA){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0) - lawyer gave advice that D was able to get discharge when it was not available
</ref>
</ref>
*  if on the admitted facts, he could not be convicted of the offence<ref>
*  if on the admitted facts, he could not be convicted of the offence<ref>
Line 541: Line 541:
A change of plea is rarely granted, first, because of the mischief it could cause and the lack of certainty in plea deals, second, need to ensure fairness to the victims, complainants and witnesses involved.
A change of plea is rarely granted, first, because of the mischief it could cause and the lack of certainty in plea deals, second, need to ensure fairness to the victims, complainants and witnesses involved.
<ReF>
<ReF>
R v Hallam, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fw7p 2003 BCPC 333] (CanLII), [2003] BCJ No 2176{{perBCPC|Brecknell J}}<br>
''R v Hallam'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fw7p 2003 BCPC 333] (CanLII), [2003] BCJ No 2176{{perBCPC|Brecknell J}}<br>
R v Murphy, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mqdm 1995 CanLII 4329], [1995] NSJ No.41{{perNSCA|Chipman JA}} (3:0) at 10
''R v Murphy'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mqdm 1995 CanLII 4329], [1995] NSJ No.41{{perNSCA|Chipman JA}} (3:0) at 10
</ref>
</ref>


Representation by counsel is a significant factor.<ReF>''R v McCollum'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ww90 2008 NSCA 36] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Bateman JA}} (3:0) at para 10</ref>
Representation by counsel is a significant factor.<ReF>''R v McCollum'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ww90 2008 NSCA 36] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Bateman JA}} (3:0) at para 10</ref>


A co-accused who is acquitted does not change the validity of the guilty plea.<ref> R v Hick, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsgt 1991 CanLII 47] (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 383{{perSCC|Stevenson J}} (5:0)</ref>
A co-accused who is acquitted does not change the validity of the guilty plea.<ref> ''R v Hick'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsgt 1991 CanLII 47] (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 383{{perSCC|Stevenson J}} (5:0)</ref>


Guilty plea are more likely be struck where there are English language problems.<ReF>R v Meers [http://canlii.ca/t/1d96w 1991 CanLII 311] (BC CA){{TheCourtBCCA}} (3:0)<br>
Guilty plea are more likely be struck where there are English language problems.<ReF>R v Meers [http://canlii.ca/t/1d96w 1991 CanLII 311] (BC CA){{TheCourtBCCA}} (3:0)<br>
Line 556: Line 556:


Where the accused has counsel, and with the absence of any challenge to professionalism or competence, the court may infer that counsel took necessary steps to ensure the accused understood the nature and consequences of the plea.<ref>
Where the accused has counsel, and with the absence of any challenge to professionalism or competence, the court may infer that counsel took necessary steps to ensure the accused understood the nature and consequences of the plea.<ref>
R v Eastmond, [http://canlii.ca/t/1f7kk 2001 CanLII 7498] (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 4353 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0) at paras 6-7<br>  
''R v Eastmond'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1f7kk 2001 CanLII 7498] (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 4353 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0) at paras 6-7<br>  
R v Dallaire, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbsd 2001 CanLII 8276] (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 1722 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0), at par. 2<br>
''R v Dallaire'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbsd 2001 CanLII 8276] (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 1722 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0), at par. 2<br>
R v Thissen, [http://canlii.ca/t/6gzf 1998 CanLII 2713] (ON CA), [1998] OJ No 1982 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0), at par. 6<br>
''R v Thissen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6gzf 1998 CanLII 2713] (ON CA), [1998] OJ No 1982 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0), at par. 6<br>
R v Moser, [http://canlii.ca/t/1wcwt 2002 CanLII 49649] (ON SC), (2002), 163 CCC (3d) 286 (Ont. S.C.){{perONSC|Hill J}}, at paras 34, 37-39<br>
''R v Moser'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wcwt 2002 CanLII 49649] (ON SC), (2002), 163 CCC (3d) 286 (Ont. S.C.){{perONSC|Hill J}}, at paras 34, 37-39<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 567: Line 567:


Proving the invalidity of a guilty plea may be established by the record. However, if it is not apparent from the record, the court must have the appellant file his "own affidavit and any other affidavit that might be relevant to the issue".<ref>
Proving the invalidity of a guilty plea may be established by the record. However, if it is not apparent from the record, the court must have the appellant file his "own affidavit and any other affidavit that might be relevant to the issue".<ref>
R v Wiebe, [http://canlii.ca/t/fvfd0 2012 BCCA 519] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Ryan JA}} (3:0) at para 22<br>
''R v Wiebe'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvfd0 2012 BCCA 519] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Ryan JA}} (3:0) at para 22<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 575: Line 575:
Under [http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec683 s. 683], either side may apply to cross-examine the affiant.<ref>
Under [http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec683 s. 683], either side may apply to cross-examine the affiant.<ref>
e.g. Wiebe at para 22<br>
e.g. Wiebe at para 22<br>
R v Hannon, [http://canlii.ca/t/54p2 1999 BCCA 56] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Goldie JA}} (3:0)
''R v Hannon'', [http://canlii.ca/t/54p2 1999 BCCA 56] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Goldie JA}} (3:0)
</ref>
</ref>


An appellant must obtain leave of the appellate court to withdraw the plea.<ref>
An appellant must obtain leave of the appellate court to withdraw the plea.<ref>
R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 15  
''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 15  
("the appellant must obtain leave to withdraw his plea of guilty. This hurdle may be overcome where the Crown concedes the invalidity of the plea of guilty as was the case in Fegan and Claveau.") </ref>
("the appellant must obtain leave to withdraw his plea of guilty. This hurdle may be overcome where the Crown concedes the invalidity of the plea of guilty as was the case in Fegan and Claveau.") </ref>


'''Appeal of an Application to Withdraw'''<br>
'''Appeal of an Application to Withdraw'''<br>
Factual findings of the trial judge on an application to withdraw is "accorded significant deference".<ref>
Factual findings of the trial judge on an application to withdraw is "accorded significant deference".<ref>
see R v Leonard, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twnh 2007 SKCA 128] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Richards JA}} (3:0\){{at|21}}<br>
see ''R v Leonard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1twnh 2007 SKCA 128] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Richards JA}} (3:0\){{at|21}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 594: Line 594:
</ref>
</ref>
A change of plea during a jury trial should be done to  the judge presiding.<ref>
A change of plea during a jury trial should be done to  the judge presiding.<ref>
eg. R v Rowbothham, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrr 1994 CanLII 93] (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 463{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} (7:0) at para 36 - judge accepts a “directed verdict” of not guilty<br>
eg. ''R v Rowbothham'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrr 1994 CanLII 93] (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 463{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} (7:0) at para 36 - judge accepts a “directed verdict” of not guilty<br>
see also Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada at 14:1080</ref>  
see also Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada at 14:1080</ref>  
This is despite the fact that the accused was put in charge of the jury.
This is despite the fact that the accused was put in charge of the jury.
Line 602: Line 602:
</ref>
</ref>
By contrast, the older method would involve the jury taking the plea directly from the accused, if the guilty plea were to occur during the trial.<ref>
By contrast, the older method would involve the jury taking the plea directly from the accused, if the guilty plea were to occur during the trial.<ref>
See R v Walker, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ttqp 1939 CanLII 2] (SCC), [1939] SCR 214{{perSCC|Duff CJ}} (5:0)</ref>
See ''R v Walker'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ttqp 1939 CanLII 2] (SCC), [1939] SCR 214{{perSCC|Duff CJ}} (5:0)</ref>


{{Reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|2}}
Line 619: Line 619:
}}
}}


Even where the crown consents to accepting a guilty plea for a lesser offence, the judge has discretion to reject it.<ref> R v Naraindeen, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1dn8 1990 CanLII 6731] (ON CA), (1990), 75 O.R. (2d) 120 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Morden ACJ}}</ref>
Even where the crown consents to accepting a guilty plea for a lesser offence, the judge has discretion to reject it.<ref> ''R v Naraindeen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1dn8 1990 CanLII 6731] (ON CA), (1990), 75 O.R. (2d) 120 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Morden ACJ}}</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
Line 627: Line 627:


A guilty plea is only an admission of the essential facts to make out the elements of the offence. Any facts beyond those essential facts must either be agreed upon by the parties or evidence must be called.<ref>
A guilty plea is only an admission of the essential facts to make out the elements of the offence. Any facts beyond those essential facts must either be agreed upon by the parties or evidence must be called.<ref>
R v Gardiner, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpcq 1982 CanLII 30] (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 368{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (4:3) <br>
''R v Gardiner'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpcq 1982 CanLII 30] (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 368{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (4:3) <br>
R v Hoang, [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 17</ref>
''R v Hoang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4b9 2003 ABCA 251] (CanLII){{perABCA|Wittmann JA}} (3:0) at para 17</ref>


Adjudicative fairness requires that both sides stay within the facts established by an agreed statement of fact or else it must be proven by evidence. Parties cannot engage in ambushing each other with new facts.<ref>
Adjudicative fairness requires that both sides stay within the facts established by an agreed statement of fact or else it must be proven by evidence. Parties cannot engage in ambushing each other with new facts.<ref>
R v Hunt, [http://canlii.ca/t/1tfxh 2002 ABCA 155] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0) at para 15, 18
''R v Hunt'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1tfxh 2002 ABCA 155] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0) at para 15, 18
</ref>
</ref>


Line 640: Line 640:


A plea does not become invalid on the basis that there is no agreed statement of fact.<ref>
A plea does not become invalid on the basis that there is no agreed statement of fact.<ref>
R v Campbell, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6r9t 2014 NBPC 36] (CanLII){{perNBPC|Cloutier J}}{{at|43}}<br>
''R v Campbell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6r9t 2014 NBPC 36] (CanLII){{perNBPC|Cloutier J}}{{at|43}}<br>
R v Peters, [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 12<br>
''R v Peters'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g75bw 2014 BCSC 983] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} at para 12<br>
</ref>
</ref>



Revision as of 09:43, 13 January 2019

Introduction

See also: Arraignment and Plea

A plea of guilty is the process by which a person admits criminal liability to an offence charged resulting in a conviction being entered and the forfeiting of a trial.

This process has three steps:[1]

  1. the entry of a guilty plea
  2. the acceptance of the plea, and
  3. the recording of the conviction.

Once a guilty plea has been entered the trial judge must impose a penalty for each of the charges associated with the guilty plea.[2]

A plea may be undone in one of several ways:

  • the trial judge may expunge the guilty plea on the grounds that it was invalid;
  • the trial judge may expunge the guilty plea at his discretion where the plea was unjust;
  • the court of appeal may expunge a guilty plea on the basis that the acceptance caused a miscarriage of justice;
  • the court of appeal may expunge a guilty plea on the basis that the trial judge improperly refused to expunge it;
  1. R v Senior (1996), 181 A.R. 1; aff’d, 1997 CanLII 348 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 288, per Lamer CJ
    R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0) at para 19
  2. see Sentencing

When a Guilty Plea Can be Entered

A guilty plea should not be entered where the accused denies guilt.[1]

If the accused does not remember or recall the incident, the judge may still accept the guilty plea so long as the accused is capable to accept the allegation as correct.[2]

A judge may accept a plea to an included offence only where there is consent of the crown.[3]


  1. R v Denis 2005 QCCA 1089 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0) at para 38
  2. R v Jawbone, 1998 CanLII 6104 (MB CA), per Scott CJ
  3. s. 606(4)

Acceptance of a Guilty Plea

A conviction or finding of guilt is not entered until such time as the court accepts the plea. A plea by itself is not enough.[1]

The "offering" or "tendering" of a guilty plea by an accused is a separate and distinct step from the judge formally accepting the plea.[2]

Section 606(1.1) is a codification of the common law.[3]

A plea of guilty can only be accepted by the Court if the requirements of s. 606(1.1) are satisfied. The provision states:

Pleas permitted
606.
...
(1.1) A court may accept a plea of guilty only if it is satisfied that the accused

(a) is making the plea voluntarily; and
(b) understands
(i)that the plea is an admission of the essential elements of the offence,
(ii)the nature and consequences of the plea, and
(iii)that the court is not bound by any agreement made between the accused and the prosecutor.

Validity of plea
(1.2) The failure of the court to fully inquire whether the conditions set out in subsection (1.1) are met does not affect the validity of the plea. ...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 606; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 125; 2002, c. 13, s. 49.


CCC

A plea must be taken in the presence of an accused “unless the court orders otherwise”.[4] This would potentially include acceptance of pleas through the use of video links.[5]

606
...
Video links
(5) For greater certainty, subsections 650(1.1) and (1.2) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to pleas under this section if the accused has agreed to use a means referred to in those subsections.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 606; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 125; 2002, c. 13, s. 49; 2015, c. 13, s. 21.


CCC

For a guilty plea to be valid it must possess the following attributes:[6]

  • voluntary,
  • unequivocal,
  • informed of the nature of the allegations and of the consequences of a plea.

The judge has the discretion whether the accept or reject a guilty plea. This discretion is one that "if exercised judicially, will not be lightly interfered with".[7] This is so in order to promote the "gravity, finality and integrity of the process."[8]

While it is not essential for the acceptance of a guilty plea, it is recommended that the facts should be read to the judge before he accepts the guilty plea.[9]

  1. R v Senior 1996 ABCA 71 (CanLII), 1996 116 CCC 3d 152 (ABCA), per curiam (3:0)
    R v Shrupka 2000 MBCA 112 (CanLII), (2000) 149 CCC 3d 410 (MBCA), per Helper JA (3:0) at 24
  2. R v Cataract, 1994 CanLII 4616 (SK CA), [1994] S.J. No. 524, per Bayda CJ (3:0) at para 15 ("It is made perfectly clear by this decision that the entering by an accused of a guilty plea is one step in the proceeding and the acceptance of that plea by the judge is a separate and distinct step.")
  3. R v Sullivan, 2004 BCSC 683 (CanLII), per Cole J, at para 21
    R v Peters, 2014 BCSC 983 (CanLII), per Romilly J, at para 9
  4. see s.650.01(3)(c)
  5. see 606(1.2); 650(1.1); 650(1.2)
  6. R v Hector 2000 CanLII 5725 (ONCA), per Finlayson JA (3:0)
    see also: R v Lyons, 1987 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 309, per La Forest J (5:2) at p 371
    R v Leonard, 2007 SKCA 128 (CanLII), per Richards JA (3:0) at para 17
    R v Claveau 2003 NBCA 52 (CanLII), per Deschênes JA (3:0) at para 7
    R v Pottie, 1996 CanLII 5604, (1996) NSR 2d 56 (NSCA), per Pugsley JA (3:0)
    R v Fegan, 1993 CanLII 8607 (ON CA), (1993) 80 CCC 3d 356 (Ont. C.A.), per Finlayson JA (3:0) at p. 360
    R v RT, 1992 CanLII 2834, 17 C.R. (4th) 247 (ON CA), per Doherty JA (3:0) at p. 252 (Ont. C.A.) ("To constitute a valid guilty plea, the plea must be voluntary and unequivocal. The plea must also be informed, that is the accused must be aware of the nature of the allegations made against him, the effect of his plea, and the consequence of his plea.")
  7. Thibodeou v The Queen, 1955 CanLII 57 (SCC), [1955] SCR 646, per Cartwright J (5:0) at p. 654
    see also R v Adgey [1975] 2 SCR 426, 1973 CanLII 37 (SCC), per Dickson J (3:2) at p. 430
  8. R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0) at para 24
  9. R v Cataract, 1994 CanLII 4616 (SK CA), [1994] S.J. No. 524, per Bayda CJ (3:0)
    R v IBB, 2009 SKPC 76 (CanLII), per Whelan J
    R v Corkum, 1984 ABCA 226 (CanLII), [1984] AJ No 970, 64 A.R. 354, per Stevenson JA (3:0)

Voluntariness

Voluntariness of a plea refers to the "conscious volitional decision" of the accused to plea guilty "for reasons which he ... regards as appropriate".[1] It is one that is not the product of "coercion or duress".[2]

A voluntary plea requires" the conscious volitional decision of the accused to plead guilty for reasons which he or she regards as appropriate".[3]

An accused who feels under pressure to plead guilty is not generally enough to vitiate voluntariness. It is expected that a persons facing serious charges will feel pressure at the time of plea.[4]

Death threats are sufficient to vitiate voluntariness on a guilty plea.[5]

A judge is not obliged to inquire into the motive for a guilty plea.[6]

Guilty plea motivated by a desire to avoid tougher sentence will not be grounds of striking the plea.[7] Similarly, it is permissible for the crown to suggest that if a guilty plea is entered, bail will not be opposed prior to sentence.[8]

There is no requirement that the accused's voluntarily decision must be rational or objectively in the accused's best interests.[9]

Limited Cognitive Capacity
A person of limited cognitive capacity must have "an ability to understand the process and make an active or conscious choice". [10]

In all, the court must simply be satisfied that the accused (1) understands the process, (2) can communicate with counsel, and (3) be able to make a conscious choice" regardless of whether it is in their best interest.[11]

  1. R v Campbell, 2014 NBPC 36 (CanLII), per Cloutier J, at para 42
    R v Rosen, 1979 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 961, per Mclntyre J (8:1) at p. 974, 51 CCC (2d) 65 at p. 75
  2. R v Peters, 2014 BCSC 983 (CanLII), per Romilly J at para 11
  3. R v RT, 1992 CanLII 2834 (ON CA), (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), per Doherty JA (3:0) at p. 520
  4. R v Carty, 2010 ONCA 237 (CanLII), per Doherty JA -- Accused states "I think it is the best way."
  5. R v Easterbrook 2005 CanLII 12676 (ON CA), per curiam
  6. R v Khanfoussi, 2010 QCCQ 8687 (CanLII), [2010] J.Q. No.10303 (QL), per Healy J
  7. R v Burden 1996 CanLII 558 (ON CA), per curiam (3:0) - accused plead guilty on the suggestion of a dangerous offender application post-trial
  8. R v Temple (1995), BCJ No. 331, 1994 CanLII 3056 (BC CA), per Taylor JA
  9. R v MAW, 2008 ONCA 555 (CanLII), per Laskin JA, at para 33
  10. MAW, ibid., at para 33
  11. R v Henneberry, 2017 NSCA 71 (CanLII), per Beveridge JA, at para 25 ("This standard only requires that a court need be satisfied the accused understands the process, can communicate with counsel, and be able to make a conscious choice. It need not be a choice that is objectively wise, rational or necessarily in the accused’s best interests.")

Equivocation

Any conditional guilty plea, such as admission of guilt only where a particular outcome be granted, is not a guilty plea at all.[1]

A guilty plea is considered conditional where the plea was done on advice of the lawyer who was mistaken to believe that an appeal of conviction and ruling would be possible after the plea was entered.[2] It is also conditional where the crown offers to allow a withdraw of a guilty plea if the judge does not adopt the joint recommendation.[3]

A withdraw could be supported where the accused asserts a potential valid defence.[4]

A guilty plea made merely to gain some sort of perceived advantage is not enough to invalidate the plea.[5]

An unequivocal plea is one that is "clear, plain, and capable of being understood in only one way".[6]

Where the charges are read personally to the accused before the plea, it will tend to "demonstrate the unequivocal character of the plea".[7]

  1. R v Lucas, (1983), 9 CCC (3d) 71, 1983 CanLII 3600 (ON CA), per Martin JA (3:0) at p. 75 ("A conditional plea of guilty is unknown to our law")
  2. R v Fegan, 1993 CanLII 8607 (ON CA), (1993) 80 CCC 3d 356, per Finlayson JA (3:0)
  3. R v Kleinsteuber, 1997 CanLII 3567 (BC CA), per Esson JA (3:0) at 4-6
  4. R v Hunt, 2004 ABCA 88 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0) at para 15
    R v Peters, 2014 BCSC 983 (CanLII), per Romilly J at para 11
    c.f. R v Rulli, 2011 ONCA 18 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0)
  5. R v Hughes, 1987 ABCA 69 (CanLII), (1987), 76 A.R. 294 (C.A.), per McClung JA (3:0)
    R v Burden 1996 CanLII 558 (ON CA), (1996), 90 O.A.C. 169 (Ont.C.A.), per curiam (3:0)
  6. R v Peters, supra, at para 11
  7. R v Campbell, 2014 NBPC 36 (CanLII), per Cloutier J, at para 40
    R v T. (R.), (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), 1992 CanLII 2834 (ON CA), per Doherty JA (3:0), at pp. 520-521
    R v Eastmond, 2001 CanLII 7498 (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 4353 (C.A.), per curiam (3:0\), at para 6
    R v Moser, 2002 CanLII 49649 (ON SC), (2002), 163 CCC (3d) 286 (Ont. S.C.), per Hill J, at para 32

Informed

A guilty plea that is informed has two components:[1]

  1. the accused must be aware of the nature of the allegations; and
  2. the accused must be aware of the consequences of the plea.
  1. R v RT (1992), 1992 CanLII 2834 (ON CA), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), per Doherty JA (3:0) at para 14
    R v Quick, 2016 ONCA 95 (CanLII), per Laskin JA (3:0)
    R v Chen, 2017 ONCA 946 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0\), at para 45

Understands Admissions

The accused must have sufficient information regarding the nature of the charges against him.[1]

A guilty plea is informed where the accused has been provided with disclosure of the relevant facts of the case against him.[2]

A guilty plea will be found not to be informed where there is "an objective basis to convinced a court that there is a responsible possibility that a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the [accused] would have refused to plead guilty".[3]

The accused need only be aware of the “essential facts” to make out the charge and not the full extent of the details to plea guilty.[4] This follows the principle that guilty plea is only a bare admission and not acceptance of all surrounding circumstances.[5]

There is no need that there be an agreed statement of facts.[6]

Where the accused was not aware of what he was pleading guilty to, then it will be struck.[7]

A failure to disclose some evidence will not entitle a withdrawal of guilty plea unless a "reasonable and properly informed person, put in the same situation as the accused, would have run the risk of standing trial if he or she had had timely knowledge of the undisclosed evidence.".[8]

  1. R v Henry 2011 ONCA 289 (CanLII), per Watt JA (3:0) - accused not able to listen to recordings making up allegations before plea, guilty plea invalidated
  2. R v Peters, 2014 BCSC 983 (CanLII), per Romilly J at para 11
  3. R v White, 2016 NSCA 20 (CanLII), per Bryson JA, at para 41
  4. R v Raymond, 2009 QCCA 808 (CanLII), per Morin JA (3:0) at paras 100 and 114
  5. See s. 655 which states "Where an accused is on trial for an indictable offence, he or his counsel may admit any fact alleged against him for the purpose of dispensing with proof thereof."
    see also Guilty Plea#Agreed and Disputed Facts at Sentence below.
  6. R v Campbell, 2014 NBPC 36 (CanLII), per Cloutier J, at para 43
  7. R v Halvorsen 1994 CanLII 1748 (BC CA), per Hollinrake JA (3:0)
  8. R v Peters, supra at para 11

Understand Consequences

The accused has a right to know the immediate consequence of the gulity plea. This includes "the realization that convictions would flow" and an appreciation of the nature of the potential penalties.[1] This does not include all possible consequences.[2]

Lack of knowledge of the consequences of pleading guilty is not necessarily determinative.[3]Instead, more seems to rely upon the impact on the decision, if the accused had been informed.[4]

An awareness of the effect and consequences of a guilty plea does not include knowledge of what the result of the sentencing will be".[5]

“Consequences” of the plea does not include knowledge of the long-term or external consequences to a guilty plea[6], including the impact on their immigration status.[7]

The courts can take into account the overall impact of the guilty plea when deciding whether they understood the consequence.[8]

Advice
Inaccurate advice can render a plea invalid.[9] This can include erroneous advice as to the available sentences.[10] On a lack of awareness of certain non-criminal sanctions that flow from the conviction.[11]

It is not necessary that all consequences are canvassed, in particular "surprising" consequences will not permit a new trial.[12]

  1. R v T. (R.), 1992 CanLII 2834 (ON CA), per Doherty JA (3:0) at para 37
    R v Meehan, 2013 ONSC 1782 (CanLII), per Durno J, at para 10
  2. R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0), at 36
    R v Raymond, 2009 QCCA 808 (CanLII), per Morin JA (3:0) at para 114
  3. see R v Slobodan, [1993] AJ No 11 (C.A.), 1993 ABCA 33 (CanLII), per Fraser CJ (3:0)
    R v Tyler, 2007 BCCA 142 (CanLII), per Donald JA (3:0)
    R v Hunt, 2004 ABCA 88 (CanLII), per Whittmann JA (3:0)
    R v Hoang, supra
    R v Fegan, 1993 CanLII 8607 (ON CA), (1993), 80 CCC (3d) 356 (Ont.C.A.), per Finlayson JA (3:0)
    R v Claveau, 2003 NBCA 52 (CanLII), per Deschênes JA (3:0)
  4. R v Riley 2011 NSCA 52 (CanLII), per Beveridge JA (3:0) at para 45
  5. R v Peters, 2014 BCSC 983 (CanLII), per Romilly J at para 11
  6. Hunt, supra at paras 15, 16
  7. R v Tyler 2007 BCCA 142 (CanLII), per Donald JA (3:0)
    R v Nersysyan 2005 QCCA 606 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0)
    R v Meehan, 2013 ONSC 1782 (CanLII), per Durno J
  8. Riley, supra at para 45
  9. e.g. R v Tzeng, 2007 CanLII 6935 (ON SC), [2007] OJ No 878 (S.C.J.), per Durno J
    Meehan, supra at paras 12 to 13
  10. R v Armstrong, 1997 CanLII 1487 (ON CA), [1997] OJ No 45, per curiam (3:0)
  11. e.g. R v Stewart, 2002 CanLII 16206 (ON SC), (2002), 33 M.V.R. (4th) 103 (S.C.J.), per Glass J
    R v Fells, 2003 CanLII 31609 (ON SC), [2003] O.J. NO. 1392 (S.C.J.), per Kruzick J - unaware of effect of a discharge
  12. R v Closs, 1998 CanLII 1921 (ON CA), [1998] OJ No 172, per Carthy JA (“There are many negative consequences of having a criminal conviction and it cannot be expected that these will all be explained to an accused prior to a plea; nor should the convicted person expect the judicial system to provide a fresh start when a surprising consequence of the conviction is encountered.”)

Miscarriage of Justice

An accused seeking to withdraw a guilty plea should show that a miscarriage of justice would result if the plea is not withdrawn.[1]

Valid grounds include where there is an appearance of unfairness.[2]

Unfairness would include where the accused was pressured or extorted into pleading guilty.[3]

There is no miscarriage of justice here it appears that the accused is attempting to cause "mischief" by obstructing the process, postponing sentence or is merely dissatisfied with the result.[4]

The motive to enter a guilty plea is only relevant insofar as it is relevant to the issue of whether there was a miscarriage of justice.[5]

Counsel who gives wrong legal advice may be a basis for there to be a miscarriage of justice.[6]

  1. R v Peters, 2014 BCSC 983 (CanLII), per Romilly J at para 11
  2. R v Stork (1975) 24 CCC 210, 1975 CanLII 1258 (BC CA), per Farris CJ (3:0)
    R v Adgey 1973 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426, per Dickson J (3:2) at p 431
  3. R v Lamoureux, (1984) 13 CCC (3d) 101 (QCCA), 1984 CanLII 3492 (QC CA), per Rothman JA (3:0)
    R v Temple [1995] BCJ No 331 (BCCA), 1994 CanLII 3056 (BC CA), per Taylor JA
  4. Peters, supra at para 11
  5. Peters, supra at para 11
  6. R v White, 2009 NSSC 313 (CanLII), per Cacchione J at para 10

Inquiry Into Guilty Plea

The judge has discretion to inquire into whether the accused meets these criteria. [1]

A judge need not “fully inquire” into whether 606(1.1) is met before accepting a guilty plea.[2] It is nonetheless recommended that an inquiry be made into the 606(1.1) criteria.[3]

606
...
Validity of plea
(1.2) The failure of the court to fully inquire whether the conditions set out in subsection (1.1) are met does not affect the validity of the plea.
...


CCC

Where an accused is represented by counsel, the judge may presume that counsel canvassed the elements under s. 606(1.1).[4]

The extent of the inquiry will vary with the seriousness of the charge.[5]

Where the plea is entered in open court it is presumed valid.[6]

When entered with counsel it is presumed that the accused was "fully familiar with the circumstances surrounding the offence and to have been aware of the consequences of entering a guilty plea.[7] The presumption is stronger where it is done after consulting with experienced counsel.[8]

The judge has a duty to "satisfy himself that the accused admits sufficient facts to sustain the plea".[9]

  1. See Brosseau v The Queen, 1968 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1969] SCR 181, per Cartwright CJ (4:1)
    Thibodeau v The Queen, 1955 CanLII 57 (SCC), [1955] SCR 646, per Cartwright J (5:0)
    Adgey v The Queen, [1975] 2 SCR 426, 13 CCC (2d) 177, 1973 CanLII 37 (SCC), per Dickson J (3:2)
    R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0), at paras 18, 21 to 24
    See: R v Lamoureux, (1984), 13 CCC (3d) 101 (Que. C.A.), 1984 CanLII 3492 (QC CA), per Rothman JA (3:0)
    R v Antoine (1984) 40 C.R. (3d) 375 (Que. C.A.)(*no CanLII links)
  2. see 606(1.2)
    R v Eizenga 2011 ONCA 113 (CanLII), per Weiler JA (3:0) at para 47
    R v Messervey 2010 NSCA 55 (CanLII), per Beveridge JA (3:0)
    R v Walsh 2006 CanLII 7393 (ON CA), (2006), 206 CCC (3d) 543, per Armstrong JA (3:0) at 28
    R v JGT, 2003 BCCA 1 (CanLII), per Rowles JA (3:0) at para 19
  3. R v Gates, 2010 BCCA 378(*no CanLII links) at paras 21-22
    R v Leiviska, 2011 BCCA 145 (CanLII), per Chiasson JA, at para 25
    JGT, supra, at para 19
  4. R v Peters, 2014 BCSC 983 (CanLII), per Romilly J at para 11
  5. R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0) at para 21
  6. See below citing R v Eide, 2011 SKCA 81 (CanLII), per Klebuc JA (3:0) at para 8
  7. R v Paiero, (1986), 71 NSR (2d) 268 (C.A.)(*no CanLII links)
  8. R v Swanson 2000 BCCA 177 (CanLII), per Prowse JA (3:0) at para 24
  9. R v Peters, supra, at para 11

Procedural Effect of a Guilty Plea

Once a plea has been made it is considered formal proof of the offence committed. There is no burden on the Crown to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.[1] It is considered admission of the essential legal ingredients to the offence.[2] However, a plea is not formal proof of the underlying facts. [3]

A guilty plea is considered the end of the challenge to the criminal charge against the accused. [4] In pleading guilty, the accused is consenting to a conviction being entered without a trial.[5] This also means that the guilty plea will extinguish any procedural rights, rights of appeal or ability to challenge the ruling of guilt.[6] There can only be a re-opening of the issue of admissibility of the evidence if the accused was not aware of the effect of the guilty plea.[7]

Where a Charter application fails and there remains no further defence, the proper procedure to preserve the right of appeal is to admit the facts alleged and invite the judge to convict.[8]

  1. R v C.(W.B.), 2000 CanLII 5659 (ON CA), (2000), 142 CCC 3d 490 (Ont.C.A.), per Wiler JA (2:1)
  2. R v Gardiner, 1982 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 368, per Dickson J (4:3)
    R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0) at para 17
  3. R v Berry (1957) 118 CCC 55 (Ont.CA), 1957 CanLII 505 (ON CA), per Roach JA (5:0)
  4. R v Bowman, 2008 BCCA 410 (CanLII), per Lowry JA (3:0)
    R v Duong, 2006 BCCA 325 (CanLII), per Rowles JA (3:0)
  5. R v Hoang, supra at para 17
  6. Korponay v Canada (Attorney General), 1982 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 41, per Lamer J (9:0) at p. 49
    R v Richard, 1996 CanLII 185 (SCC), [1996] 3 SCR 525, per La Forest J (9:0)
    Brady v US, 397 US 742 (1970) at p. 748
  7. See Duong, supra
  8. See R v Duong, ibid. at para 8
    R v Carter, 2003 BCCA 632 (CanLII), per Finch CJ at para 6
    R v Webster, 2008 BCCA 458 (CanLII), per Frankel JA (3:0) at paras 19-22
    c.f. R v Liberatore, 2014 NSCA 109 (CanLII), per Fichaud JA (3:0) at para 13

Withdrawing a Guilty Plea

A guilty plea can be expunged by either the trial judge or by an appellate court.[1]

  1. R v Leonard, 2007 SKCA 128 (CanLII), per Richards JA (3:0) at para 19

Presumptions and Burdens

If the plea is valid it generally cannot be withdrawn.[1] Likewise, an appellate court cannot quash a conviction where the guilty plea was valid.[2]

The accused "bears the onus of demonstrating that the plea is not valid".Cite error: Invalid parameter in <ref> tag

A plea in open court by an accused represented by counsel is presumptively valid.[3] Where the accused is represented by counsel there is a strong presumption of validity.[4]

The burden is upon the accused to establish the guilty plea as invalid. [5] This is on the standard of balance of probabilities.[6]

An accused represented by counsel is presumed to be familiar with the circumstances surrounding the offence and the consequences of the plea.[7]

Public policy suggests that a guilty plea should not be withdrawn "except in exceptional circumstances".[8] Both parties benefit from guilty pleas. The accused is given the mitigating effect of the plea and will sometimes have other charges withdrawn. The Crown and courts will forgo the costs associated with having a trial. The validity of a guilty plea promotes essential values of the administration of justice.[9] As such a plea should be withdrawn only where the plea results in a miscarriage of justice which arise from either an invalid guilty plea or some other prejudice that results from the plea.[10]

  1. R v T(R) 1992 CanLII 2834 (ON CA), (1992), 17 C.R. (4th) 247 (Ont. C.A.), per Doherty JA (3:0)
    R v Hector 2000 CanLII 5725 (ONCA), per Finlayson JA (3:0)
  2. R v Arcand, 2000 SKCA 60 (CanLII), per Cameron JA at para 3 ("the law empowers an appellate court to expunge a guilty plea ... and to quash the resulting conviction, but only on valid grounds. It is not within the power of an appellate court to expunge a voluntary, unequivocal, and informed plea of guilty, made by a person unaware of the nature of the allegations, the effect of the plea, and its consequences")
  3. R v Eide, 2011 SKCA 81 (CanLII), per Klebuc JA (3:0)
    R v Swanson, 2000 BCCA 177 (CanLII), per Prowse JA (3:0)
  4. R v Laffin, 2009 NSCA 19 (CanLII), [2009] NSJ No. 66, per Hamilton JA (3:0) at 44
    R v Eizenga, 2011 ONCA 113 (CanLII), [2011] OJ No 524, per Weiler JA (3:0) at para 4
  5. R v Eizenga at para 45-46
    R v Djekic 2000 CanLII 16822 (ON CA), (2000), 147 CCC (3d) 572 (Ont C.A.), per curiam (3:0) at para 6 : on appeal the accused has burden to establish plea was invalid
    R v Rajaeefard 1996 CanLII 404 (ON CA), (1996), 104 CCC (3d) 225 (Ont. C.A.), per Morden ACJ (2:1)
    R v Rubenstein 1987 CanLII 2834 (ON CA), (1988), 41 CCC (3d) 91 (Ont. C.A.), per Zuber JA
    R v Cloutier 2006 QCCA 277 (CanLII), per Martin JA (3:0)
    R v T(R), supra at p. 519
    Brun v R., 2006 NBCA 17 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0) at para 8
  6. R v Eizenga, 2011 ONCA 113 (CanLII), per Weiler JA (3:0)
  7. R v Paiero, [1986] NSJ No. 98 (NSCA)(*no CanLII links)
    R v McKinnon, 2007 ABQB 432 (CanLII), per Belzil J at para 54
  8. R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0) at para 25
  9. Hoang, ibid. at para 25-27
  10. Hoang, ibid. at para 27

Trial Judge Withdraw or Invalidate a Guilty Plea

There are two overlapping bases for a judge to withdraw a guilty plea:

  1. the plea was found to be invalid; or
  2. at the discretion of the judge.

The validity is determined on the basis of the essential elements of a plea being voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.[1]

A guilty plea can be withdrawn at the discretion of the trial judge at any time before sentencing.[2] This discretion should be exercised "judicially". [3] However, the discretion is reviewable by an appellate court.

If the accused has been sentenced and wishes to withdraw the guilty plea, the trial judge is functus and has no jurisdiction to consider an application. An appellate court may only interfere with a guilty plea and quash it where the plea resulted in a "miscarriage of justice" under s. 686(1)(a)(iii).[4]

  1. see above on Validity of a Guilty Plea
  2. R v Atlay 1992 CanLII 1081 (BCCA), (1992), 70 CCC (3d) 553 (BCCA), per McEachern JA (3:0)
    Thibodeau v R, 1955 CanLII 57 (SCC), [1955] SCR 646, per Cartwright J (5:0), at para 21
  3. Thibodeau, ibid. at para 21
  4. see below re Appealing a Guilty Plea

Discretion of Trial Judge to Rescind Guilty Plea

The trial judge may rescind a guilty plea at his discretion on the basis of the Adgey factors including: [1]

  1. whether the accused was represented by (experienced) counsel[2]
  2. whether the accused was apprised of his position[3]
  3. did the accused have a valid defence[4]
  4. was the plea given while under pressure and did he have enough time to contemplate the decision[5]
  5. whether the accused had experience in the criminal justice system (usually shown by a criminal record)[6]
  6. the adequacy of the judge's inquiry into the plea[7]

The overarching factor in this analysis is whether the accused can establish that “his plea was wrong and it would be unjust to uphold the plea.”[8]

If a judge performs the inquiry under s. 606(1.1) then it is unlikely that a judge should set aside the guilty plea.[9]


  1. R v Adgey, 1973 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426, per Dickson J (3:2) at para 49
    R v Joseph, 2000 BCSC 1891 (CanLII), [2000] BCJ No. 2850 (Q.L.)(B.C.S.C.), per Taylor J at 48
    R v Stockley, 2009 NLCA 38 (CanLII), per Roberts JA (3:0) at para 7
    Nevin, supra at para 20
  2. Joseph at 48
  3. Joseph, supra at 48
  4. Joseph, supra at 48
  5. Joseph at 48
  6. Joseph, supra at 48
  7. R v Jack, 2012 BCSC 1991 (CanLII), per Fitch J at para 64
  8. R v Adgey, supra, at para 49
  9. R v Brun 2006 NBCA 17 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0)

Appeal of a Guilty Plea or Refusal to Rescind a Guilty Plea

See also: Appeals

An appellate Court may expunge a guilty plea and quash a conviction on "valid grounds".[1]

The onus is upon the appellant to establish that the plea was invalid on a balance of probabilities.[2]

The appellate court may not expunge a plea that is "voluntary, unequivocal and informed guilty plea made by a person aware of the nature of the allegations, the effect of a plea and its consequences".[3]

The Court of Appeal may also undo a guilty plea on the basis of a "miscarriage of justice" under s. 686(1)(a)(iii).[4]

  1. R v Adgey, 1973 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426 (S.C.C.), per Dickson J (3:2)
    R v RT, (1992), 1992 CanLII 2834 (ON CA), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), per Doherty JA (3:0) - Doherty stated that “[a]n accused who is convicted upon his or her plea of guilty may appeal that conviction. An appellate court will permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea and quash the consequent conviction where there are "valid grounds" for doing so: .... No finite list of all "valid grounds" can be provided.”
  2. R v Easterbrook, 2005 CanLII 12676 (ON CA), [2005] OJ No. 1486 (ONCA), per curiam (3:0)
  3. R v Kinney, 2011 SKCA 122 (CanLII), 377 Sask.R. 107, per Caldwell JA (3:0\), at para 2
    R v Arcand, 2000 SKCA 60 (CanLII), per Cameron JA (3:0)
    R v T.(R.), supra at para 14
  4. see also Appeals#Miscarriage of Justice (686(1)(a)(iii))

Grounds

An appellate court has the ability to remove a guilty plea and quash a conviction where there are "valid grounds" to do so. What constitutes valid grounds is open-ended and can include a variety of situations.[1]

There must be "valid grounds" to withdraw a guilty plea.[2] This includes where there is:[3]

  • a misunderstanding by the accused of the nature of the charge
  • a misunderstanding by the accused of the effect of his plea, such as where
    • the accused never intended to admit guilt [4]
    • there was a serious question as to the accused's mental state at the time of entering the plea
  • improper inducements or threats by the police, defence counsel, or the trial judge[5]
  • the accused did not fully appreciate the nature of the charge or the effect of the plea.[6]
  • the accused plea guilty to get some short term advantage[7]

A further situation where the plea can be withdrawn is where there is a miscarriage of justice.[8] This includes where:

  • the accused has been given wrong legal advice[9]
  • if on the admitted facts, he could not be convicted of the offence[10]

A change of plea is rarely granted, first, because of the mischief it could cause and the lack of certainty in plea deals, second, need to ensure fairness to the victims, complainants and witnesses involved. [11]

Representation by counsel is a significant factor.[12]

A co-accused who is acquitted does not change the validity of the guilty plea.[13]

Guilty plea are more likely be struck where there are English language problems.[14]

Where there was no meeting between the lawyer and the accused there will be a tendency to lean towards revoking the guilty plea.[15]

Where the accused has counsel, and with the absence of any challenge to professionalism or competence, the court may infer that counsel took necessary steps to ensure the accused understood the nature and consequences of the plea.[16]

  1. R v Taillefer, Duguay, 2003 SCC 70 (CanLII), [2003] S.C.J. No. 75, per LeBel J (9:0) at 431
    R v Adgey, 1973 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1975] 2 SCR 426 (S.C.C.), per Dickson J (3:2)
    Queen v Bamsey 1960 CanLII 35 (SCC), (1960), SCR 294, per Ritchie J (7:0) at p. 298[1]
    R v Porter [1994] 1994 CanLII 4019 (NS CA), NSJ No.304, per Pugsley JA (2:1), at para 25
  2. Adgey, supra at p. 431
  3. see R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0) at para 30 ("the appellant did not appreciate the nature of the charge, or the appellant did not intend to admit that he was guilty of it; or where upon the admitted facts, the appellant could not in law have been convicted of the offence charged")
    R v McLaughlin, 2013 NBCA 28 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0)
  4. e.g. R v SK, 1995 CanLII 8926 (ONCA), per Carthy JA (3:0)
  5. see R v Nevin, 2006 NSCA 72 (CanLII), per Bateman JA (3:0)
    R v Lamoureux, (1984), 13 CCC (3d) 101 (Que.C.A.), 1984 CanLII 3492 (QC CA), per Rothman JA (3:0)
    R v Laperrière 1995 CanLII 4706 (QC CA), (1995), 101 CCC (3d) 462, per Bisson JA aff'd [1996] 2 SCR 284, per La Forest J (7:0)
    R v Djekic 2000 CanLII 16822 (ON CA), (2000), 147 CCC (3d) 572 (Ont.C.A.), per curiam (3:0)
    R v Rajaeefard 1996 CanLII 404 (ON CA), (1996), 104 CCC (3d) 225 (Ont.C.A.), per Morden ACJ (2:1)
  6. see R v Melanson (1983), 59 N.S.R. (2d) 54 (C.A.)(*no CanLII links)
  7. R v Tyler, 2007 BCCA 142 (CanLII), 218 CCC (3d) 400 (BCCA), per Donald JA (3:0)
    R v Meehan, 2013 ONSC 1782 (CanLII), per Durno J at para 19
  8. R v Gates, 2010 BCCA 378, 293 BCAC 243(*no CanLII links) at para 2
  9. R v Armstrong, 1997 CanLII 1487 (ON CA), (1997) 33 WCB 2d 254 (ONCA), per curiam (3:0) - lawyer gave advice that D was able to get discharge when it was not available
  10. R v Melanson, supra at para 6
  11. R v Hallam, 2003 BCPC 333 (CanLII), [2003] BCJ No 2176, per Brecknell J
    R v Murphy, 1995 CanLII 4329, [1995] NSJ No.41, per Chipman JA (3:0) at 10
  12. R v McCollum, 2008 NSCA 36 (CanLII), per Bateman JA (3:0) at para 10
  13. R v Hick, 1991 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 383, per Stevenson J (5:0)
  14. R v Meers 1991 CanLII 311 (BC CA), per curiam (3:0)
    R v Golubev 2009 ONCA 333 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0)
  15. R v Golubev 2009 ONCA 333 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0)
  16. R v Eastmond, 2001 CanLII 7498 (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 4353 (C.A.), per curiam (3:0) at paras 6-7
    R v Dallaire, 2001 CanLII 8276 (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 1722 (C.A.), per curiam (3:0), at par. 2
    R v Thissen, 1998 CanLII 2713 (ON CA), [1998] OJ No 1982 (C.A.), per curiam (3:0), at par. 6
    R v Moser, 2002 CanLII 49649 (ON SC), (2002), 163 CCC (3d) 286 (Ont. S.C.), per Hill J, at paras 34, 37-39

Procedure for Withdrawing Guilty Plea

Proving the invalidity of a guilty plea may be established by the record. However, if it is not apparent from the record, the court must have the appellant file his "own affidavit and any other affidavit that might be relevant to the issue".[1]

If the grounds includes an allegation of misconduct or incompetence of previous defence counsel, the Crown may get a affidavit from the previous defence counsel to respond to the allegations.[2] The previous defence counsel is still bound by solicitor-client privilege unless waived.

Under s. 683, either side may apply to cross-examine the affiant.[3]

An appellant must obtain leave of the appellate court to withdraw the plea.[4]

Appeal of an Application to Withdraw
Factual findings of the trial judge on an application to withdraw is "accorded significant deference".[5]

  1. R v Wiebe, 2012 BCCA 519 (CanLII), per Ryan JA (3:0) at para 22
  2. Wiebe at para 22
  3. e.g. Wiebe at para 22
    R v Hannon, 1999 BCCA 56 (CanLII), per Goldie JA (3:0)
  4. R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0) at para 15 ("the appellant must obtain leave to withdraw his plea of guilty. This hurdle may be overcome where the Crown concedes the invalidity of the plea of guilty as was the case in Fegan and Claveau.")
  5. see R v Leonard, 2007 SKCA 128 (CanLII), per Richards JA (3:0\), at para 21

Jury Trials

A guilty plea before the commencement of a jury trial is to be accepted by the presiding judge.[1] A change of plea during a jury trial should be done to the judge presiding.[2] This is despite the fact that the accused was put in charge of the jury.

The accused does not need to re-elect to another mode of trial to put in the guilty plea.[3] By contrast, the older method would involve the jury taking the plea directly from the accused, if the guilty plea were to occur during the trial.[4]

  1. R v Luis (1989) 20 CCC (3d) 298 (Ont HCJ)(*no CanLII links)
  2. eg. R v Rowbothham, 1994 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 463, per Lamer CJ (7:0) at para 36 - judge accepts a “directed verdict” of not guilty
    see also Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada at 14:1080
  3. R v Murray 2000 NBCA 2 (CanLII), per Ryan JA (3:0)
  4. See R v Walker, 1939 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1939] SCR 214, per Duff CJ (5:0)

Plea to Lesser Offences

A judge can accept a guilty plea to an offence listed in the charge or any other charge arising from the same transaction where the Crown consents. Under s. 606(4), a guilty plea to a lesser included offence in permissible as stated:

s. 606
...
Included or other offence
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an accused or defendant pleads not guilty of the offence charged but guilty of any other offence arising out of the same transaction, whether or not it is an included offence, the court may, with the consent of the prosecutor, accept that plea of guilty and, if the plea is accepted, the court shall find the accused or defendant not guilty of the offence charged and find him guilty of the offence in respect of which the plea of guilty was accepted and enter those findings in the record of the court.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 606; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 125; 2002, c. 13, s. 49.

CCC

Even where the crown consents to accepting a guilty plea for a lesser offence, the judge has discretion to reject it.[1]

  1. R v Naraindeen, 1990 CanLII 6731 (ON CA), (1990), 75 O.R. (2d) 120 (Ont. C.A.), per Morden ACJ

Agreed and Disputed Facts at Sentence

See also: Admissions of Fact

A guilty plea is only an admission of the essential facts to make out the elements of the offence. Any facts beyond those essential facts must either be agreed upon by the parties or evidence must be called.[1]

Adjudicative fairness requires that both sides stay within the facts established by an agreed statement of fact or else it must be proven by evidence. Parties cannot engage in ambushing each other with new facts.[2]

As a matter of practice, counsel should provide a "common statement of facts in a written form". The value of this is that there will be no surprises and bind both parties. It also prevents further modification or addition by other parties such as probation officers and medical professionals who are involved with case afterwards. [3]

A plea does not become invalid on the basis that there is no agreed statement of fact.[4]

  1. R v Gardiner, 1982 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 368, per Dickson J (4:3)
    R v Hoang, 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), per Wittmann JA (3:0) at para 17
  2. R v Hunt, 2002 ABCA 155 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0) at para 15, 18
  3. Suggested in R v Hunt at para 17
  4. R v Campbell, 2014 NBPC 36 (CanLII), per Cloutier J, at para 43
    R v Peters, 2014 BCSC 983 (CanLII), per Romilly J at para 12

Youth Guilty Plea

See Also