Direct Indictments: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Line 80: Line 80:
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec577 CCC]
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec577 CCC]
}}
}}
Section 577 was found to be constitutional despite its effect of removing the right to a preliminary inquiry.<ref>
R v Ertel, [http://canlii.ca/t/1p77s 1987 CanLII 183] (ON CA), (1987) 35 CCC (3d) 398<br>
Re Regina and Arviv [http://canlii.ca/t/1p6zs 1985 CanLII 161] (ON CA), (1985), 19 CCC (3d) 395<br>
see also R v Charlie [http://canlii.ca/t/1dxx8 1998 CanLII 4145] (BC CA), (1998), 126 CCC (3d) 513 (BCCA)
</ref> However, where the preferring of a direct indictment is combined with inadequate disclosure on the new charge(s), then it could result in a breach of the right to full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter.<ref>
Arviv at para 26</ref>


A direct direct indictment may be commenced by the Attorney General of Canada as well as the provincial Attorney General.<Ref>
A direct direct indictment may be commenced by the Attorney General of Canada as well as the provincial Attorney General.<Ref>
Line 125: Line 118:
</ref>
</ref>


Preferring a direct indictment where disclosure obligations have not been met may breach s. 7 of the Charter.<Ref>
{{reflist|2}}
===Constitutionality===
Section 577 was found to be constitutional despite its effect of removing the right to a preliminary inquiry.<ref>
R v Ertel, [http://canlii.ca/t/1p77s 1987 CanLII 183] (ON CA), (1987) 35 CCC (3d) 398<br>
Re Regina and Arviv, [http://canlii.ca/t/1p6zs 1985 CanLII 161] (ON CA), 19 C.C.C. (3d) 395, appeal ref’d [1985] 1 S.C.R. v, <br>
see also R v Charlie [http://canlii.ca/t/1dxx8 1998 CanLII 4145] (BC CA), (1998), 126 CCC (3d) 513 (BCCA)<br>
</ref>
 
It is not necessary to rely on unwritten constitutional principles to determine whether the use of s. 577 complies with the Charter.<ref>
R v Ahmad, [http://canlii.ca/t/21988 2008 CanLII 54312] (ON SC)
</ref>
 
'''Full Disclosure'''<Br>
Preferring a direct indictment where disclosure obligations have not been met may breach the right to full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter as it removes the ability to cross-examine witnesses prior to trial.<Ref>
R v Rosamond (1983), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbfwt 1983 CanLII 2576] (SK QB), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (Q.B.)<br>
R v Rosamond (1983), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbfwt 1983 CanLII 2576] (SK QB), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (Q.B.)<br>
R v Arviv (1985), [http://canlii.ca/t/1p6zs 1985 CanLII 161] (ON CA), 19 C.C.C. (3d) 395, appeal ref’d [1985] 1 S.C.R. v<Br>
Arviv{{supra}} at para 26<Br>
R v Sterling (1993), [http://canlii.ca/t/g9cx8 1993 CanLII 9146] (SK CA), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 65 (Sask. C.A.)<br>
see also: R v Chan, [http://canlii.ca/t/5d4h 2003 ABQB 169] (CanLII)<Br>
see also: R v Chan, [http://canlii.ca/t/5d4h 2003 ABQB 169] (CanLII)<Br>
</ref>
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|2}}
===Abuse of Process===
====Abuse of Process====
The exercise of power under s. 577 can be reviewed as an abuse of process.<ref>
The exercise of power under s. 577 can be reviewed as an abuse of process.<ref>
e.g. R v Trang{{supra}} at para 369  
e.g. R v Trang{{supra}} at para 369  
Line 150: Line 157:
The use of a direct indictment as a means to "break the procedural impasse" is considered acceptable.<ref>
The use of a direct indictment as a means to "break the procedural impasse" is considered acceptable.<ref>
R v Thomas, [http://canlii.ca/t/h3w84 2017 BCSC 841] (CanLII) at para 18<br>
R v Thomas, [http://canlii.ca/t/h3w84 2017 BCSC 841] (CanLII) at para 18<br>
</ref>
'''Full Disclosure'''<Br>
It has been commented that entire disclosure must be complete before direct indictment is filed as it would have the effect of removing the ability to cross-examine the witnesses prior to trial.<Ref>
R v Sterling (1993), [http://canlii.ca/t/g9cx8 1993 CanLII 9146] (SK CA), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 65 (Sask. C.A.)<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Revision as of 09:19, 1 August 2018

Preferring Indictments

Section 566, 574 and 576 refers to the "preferring" of an indictment.

Indictment
566 (1) The trial of an accused for an indictable offence, other than a trial before a provincial court judge, shall be on an indictment in writing setting forth the offence with which he is charged.
Preferring indictment
(2) Where an accused elects under section 536 or re-elects under section 561 to be tried by a judge without a jury, an indictment in Form 4 may be preferred.
What counts may be included and who may prefer indictment
(3) Section 574 and subsection 576(1) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to the preferring of an indictment pursuant to subsection (2).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 566; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 111; 1997, c. 18, s. 67.


– CCC

Prosecutor may prefer indictment
574. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the prosecutor may, whether the charges were included in one information or not, prefer an indictment against any person who has been ordered to stand trial in respect of

(a) any charge on which that person was ordered to stand trial; or
(b) any charge founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence taken on the preliminary inquiry, in addition to or in substitution for any charge on which that person was ordered to stand trial.

Preferring indictment when no preliminary inquiry requested
(1.1) If a person has not requested a preliminary inquiry under subsection 536(4) or 536.1(3) into the charge, the prosecutor may, subject to subsection (3), prefer an indictment against a person in respect of a charge set out in an information or informations, or any included charge, at any time after the person has made an election, re-election or deemed election on the information or informations.
Preferring single indictment
(1.2) If indictments may be preferred under both subsections (1) and (1.1), the prosecutor may prefer a single indictment in respect of one or more charges referred to in subsection (1) combined with one or more charges or included charges referred to in subsection (1.1).
Consent to inclusion of other charges
(2) An indictment preferred under any of subsections (1) to (1.2) may, if the accused consents, include a charge that is not referred to in those subsections, and the offence charged may be dealt with, tried and determined and punished in all respects as if it were an offence in respect of which the accused had been ordered to stand trial. However, if the offence was committed wholly in a province other than that in which the accused is before the court, subsection 478(3) applies.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 574; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 113; 2002, c. 13, s. 45.


– CCC

Indictment
576 (1) Except as provided in this Act, no indictment shall be preferred.
Criminal information and bill of indictment
(2) No criminal information shall be laid or granted and no bill of indictment shall be preferred before a grand jury.
Coroner’s inquisition
(3) No person shall be tried on a coroner’s inquisition.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 576; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 114.


– CCC

The preferring of an indictment occurs when it is "lodged" with the superior court at the opening of trial.[1]

Once an indictment has been preferred, any defect arising from the arrest, summoning, or preliminary inquiry will not invalidate the indictment.[2]

An indictment has been preferred once an accused has been arraigned and plead not guilty. At this point the indictment cannot be quashed.[3]

  1. ↑ R v Chabot 1980 CanLII 54 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 985
    R v Tippett 2010 NLCA 49 (CanLII)
  2. ↑ R v Chabot
    R v Dowson, 1983 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1983] 2 SCR 144
  3. ↑ R v Tippett, 2010 NLCA 49 (CanLII)

Direct Indictment

A "direct indictment" is an indictment that has been put before a Superior Court Justice without there having been an information from which the accused would have had an option of a preliminary inquiry.

Direct indictments
577. Despite section 574, an indictment may be preferred even if the accused has not been given the opportunity to request a preliminary inquiry, a preliminary inquiry has been commenced but not concluded or a preliminary inquiry has been held and the accused has been discharged, if

(a) in the case of a prosecution conducted by the Attorney General or one in which the Attorney General intervenes, the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General is filed in court; or
(b) in any other case, a judge of the court so orders.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 577; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 115, c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F); 2002, c. 13, s. 46.


– CCC

A direct direct indictment may be commenced by the Attorney General of Canada as well as the provincial Attorney General.[1]

Where a direct indictment has been preferred the accused is deemed to have waived the preliminary inquiry and has made an election of trial by judge and jury.(565)

Direct indictments can be used even where there was already an election to provincial court.[2] It can also be used where the offence is one of absolute jurisdiction under s. 553[3]

Direct Indictments are most frequently used where:[4]

  1. delays in the trial could deprive the accused of the right to be tried within a reasonable time;
  2. the physical or psychological health of witnesses, their age, their safety or that of their relatives, and the difficulties involved in having witnesses testify more than once;
  3. preservation of the integrity of the Crown’s evidence by, for example, protecting informants and ongoing police investigations;
  4. a risk that evidence could be destroyed;
  5. public safety reasons;
  6. the need to avoid multiple proceedings caused, for example, by delays in making arrests;
  7. the accused was wrongly discharged following the preliminary inquiry because of errors, or new evidence has been discovered;
  8. a preliminary inquiry would be unreasonably costly, complex or long, or would be inappropriate because of the nature of the issues or the evidence;
  9. the alleged offence is so controversial that it is in the public interest to try the case as quickly as possible; and
  10. certain guidelines set out additional, broader criteria, such as the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, the public interest, or the fact that the case is notorious or of particular importance to the public, that the direct indictment is the most appropriate procedure in the circumstances, or that there is a special need to expedite proceedings.

The Attorney General does not need to give reasons for deciding to prefer a direct indictment.[5]

The power under s. 577 is a discretionary power of the Crown.[6] However, it is reviewable for violations of the Charter. [7]

The consent of the Attorney General should generally be found on the direct indictment with a signature. However, may still be valid by attaching a letter from the Attorney-General consenting to the indictment.[8]

The "recommendation package" addressed to the Attorney General setting out a recommendation for laying a direct indictment is privileged and not disclosable.[9]

  1. ↑ R v Trang, 2001 ABQB 106 (CanLII),
  2. ↑ Sher v The Queen, 2012 ONSC 4783 (CanLII) at para 14
    R v Poloni, 2009 BCSC 629 (CanLII) (“[the case law] all unequivocally state that the Attorney General has jurisdiction to directly indict an accused person who previously elected trial in provincial court.”)
  3. ↑ R v Beaudry, [1967] 1 CCC 272 (BCCA)(*no CanLII links)
  4. ↑ R v S.J.L., 2009 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2009] 1 SCR 426 at para 38
  5. ↑ R v Sher, supra, at para 27, 29
  6. ↑ Ertel, supra
  7. ↑ R v Dallas, Hinchcliffe & Terezakis, 2001 BCSC 77 (CanLII) at para 21
  8. ↑ See R v L'Henaff, 1999 SKQB 259 (CanLII) for form of indictment
  9. ↑ R v Ahmad, 2008 CanLII 27470 (ON SC)
    see also Solicitor Client Privilege

Constitutionality

Section 577 was found to be constitutional despite its effect of removing the right to a preliminary inquiry.[1]

It is not necessary to rely on unwritten constitutional principles to determine whether the use of s. 577 complies with the Charter.[2]

Full Disclosure
Preferring a direct indictment where disclosure obligations have not been met may breach the right to full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter as it removes the ability to cross-examine witnesses prior to trial.[3]

  1. ↑ R v Ertel, 1987 CanLII 183 (ON CA), (1987) 35 CCC (3d) 398
    Re Regina and Arviv, 1985 CanLII 161 (ON CA), 19 C.C.C. (3d) 395, appeal ref’d [1985] 1 S.C.R. v,
    see also R v Charlie 1998 CanLII 4145 (BC CA), (1998), 126 CCC (3d) 513 (BCCA)
  2. ↑ R v Ahmad, 2008 CanLII 54312 (ON SC)
  3. ↑ R v Rosamond (1983), 1983 CanLII 2576 (SK QB), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (Q.B.)
    Arviv, supra at para 26
    R v Sterling (1993), 1993 CanLII 9146 (SK CA), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 65 (Sask. C.A.)
    see also: R v Chan, 2003 ABQB 169 (CanLII)

Abuse of Process

The exercise of power under s. 577 can be reviewed as an abuse of process.[1]

To warrant a remedy, it must be shown "that a discretion was exercise for improper or arbitrary motives".[2] There must be "clear and convincing evidence supporting the allegations before the Court."[3]

The defence may be able to have the court order evidence be taken from the justice system participants involved in the decision and the documents related to the decision to direct the indictment.[4] There is a high standard to warrant such disclosure requiring evidence of mala fides or "flagrant impropriety".[5] Further, the applicant must show that the documents fall under an exception to solicitor-client privilege.[6]

The use of a direct indictment as a means to "break the procedural impasse" is considered acceptable.[7]

  1. ↑ e.g. R v Trang, supra at para 369
  2. ↑ R v Beare 1988 CanLII 126 (SCC)
  3. ↑ Dallas, Hinchcliffe & Terezakis, supra at para 21
  4. ↑ R v Durette, 1992 CanLII 2779 (ON CA), (1992), 72 CCC (3d) 421 - judge declined to order statements from prosecutors but ordered sealed copies of relevant documents
  5. ↑ R v Chan, 2003 ABQB 169 (CanLII) - application for disclosure denied
  6. ↑ R v Trang, 2002 ABQB 744 (CanLII) at para 419
  7. ↑ R v Thomas, 2017 BCSC 841 (CanLII) at para 18

History of Section 577

Prior to the 2002 amendments to s. 577, the provision read:

Direct indictments
577. In any prosecution,

(a) where a preliminary inquiry has not been held, an indictment shall not be preferred, or
(b) where a preliminary inquiry has been held and the accused has been discharged, an indictment shall not be preferred or a new information shall not be laid

before any court without,

(c) where the prosecution is conducted by the Attorney General or the Attorney General intervenes in the prosecution, the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, or
(d) where the prosecution is conducted by a prosecutor other than the Attorney General and the Attorney General does not intervene in the prosecution, the written order of a judge of that court.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 577; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 115, c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F).


– CCC

Prior to the 1985, s. 577 was found at s. 504.[1]

  1. ↑ See Table_of_Concordance_(Criminal_Code)

Procedure

Where an indictment is preferred, the accused may be compelled to attend by way or summons or warrant for arrest, as the case may be, under s. 578, which states:

Summons or warrant
578 (1) Where notice of the recommencement of proceedings has been given pursuant to subsection 579(2) or an indictment has been filed with the court before which the proceedings are to commence or recommence, the court, if it considers it necessary, may issue

(a) a summons addressed to, or
(b) a warrant for the arrest of,

the accused or defendant, as the case may be, to compel him to attend before the court to answer the charge described in the indictment.

Part XVI to apply
(2) The provisions of Part XVI apply with such modifications as the circumstances require where a summons or warrant is issued under subsection (1). R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 578; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 116.


– CCC

Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Direct_Indictments&oldid=6077"