 |
| Patrick Ducharme |
In this defence the evidence needs to focus on the conduct of the person charged. Did, for example, the actions of the accused appear to be conscious and voluntary? Or, in contrast, were the actions of the accused immediate, reflexive, occurring on the sudden, accidental, and/or unintended?
Continue reading “An Unintended Act”
 |
| Patrick J Ducharme |
The word “accident” is derived from the Latin verb “accidere” meaning to fall upon or happen by chance. It describes an event that occurs in circumstances that are unusual or unexpected, even to the person to whom it happens, and, as such, the happening is unusual and the result of an occurrence that is a mishap based on sudden and unexpected events taking place without expectation or intention. It can often be broken down into two parts:
Continue reading “Accident”
 |
| Patrick Ducharme |
Here are some of the most common defences used at trials in Canada.
1. Accident
2. Consent
3. Intoxication
4. Mental Disorder
5. Mistake
6. Necessity
7. Self Defence
8. Denial of Conduct Alleged.
Continue reading “The Most Common Defences Used at Trials”
| |
| Patrick Ducharme |
That focus should be on what occurred (if anything) what involvement there is on the part of the accused (if any), and, if the accused did play some part in the events, was he intending to commit the crime, cause the hurt, cause the damage or effect the result.
Continue reading “The Intentional Part”
| |
| Patrick J Ducharme |
Described in the broadest of terms, and in a non-legalistic fashion, there are only three defences available to any accused person in Canada. They are:
1. The alleged crime(s) did not occur.
2. If the alleged crime(s) did occur, the accused did not commit it (them).
3. If the alleged crime(s) did occur, and the accused performed at least some of the actions alleged to form the basis of committing the crime(s), the accused did not intend or mean to commit it (them).
| |
| Patrick Ducharme |
Recently, there have been significant changes in our laws related to bail, both in case law and legislatively. The upshot of these changes emphasizes that the bail system is intended to ensure the persons charged with criminal offenses will attend court when necessary to answer to the charge(s). The emphasis is on their release from custody prior to having to answer to the charge unless it is established by the prosecution that the accused poses a risk to the public safety on bail.
Continue reading “Summary of Bail”
| |
| Patrick Ducharme |
In R. v. Antic1 the accused was charged with several drug and firearms offences. He was detained at his original bail hearing and sought release on a bail review. The bail review Judge declined to vacate the detention order but indicated that he would have released the accused if he could have imposed both a surety and a cash deposit as release conditions. The Judge on review felt constrained by subsection 515(2) because the subsection only applies if the accused is from out of the province or does not ordinarily reside within two hundred km of his incarceration.
Continue reading “R. v. Antic: The Right Not to be Denied Reasonable Bail”
| |
| Patrick J Ducharme |
Any bail order may be altered by: the trial Judge at any time or by the preliminary inquiry Judge at the completion of the preliminary inquiry; or, by any Justice at any time with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused; or, by any Judge of the Superior Court of Justice with the consent of the accused and the prosecutor, or, by any Judge of the court before which the accused is being tried with the consent of the accused and the prosecutor.
Continue reading “Alternate Ways to Review”
| |
| Patrick Ducharme |
A Justice presiding at a bail hearing may name a person as a surety. A surety is a person who makes a solemn promise in the form of a recognizance that he will forfeit a specific sum of money if the accused fails to abide by any of the conditions imposed by the court in the recognizance. If an accused is unable to procure a suitable surety, he may seek the consent of the prosecutor to deposit a specific amount of money instead.
Continue reading “Sureties”
| |
| Patrick Ducharme |
A recognizance is a form of solemn promise and an acknowledgment that a person makes to the court in support of the release of an accused that has attached to it a commitment to pay a specific amount if the accused does not abide by the conditions set out in the recognizance. A recognizance is enforceable through forfeiture proceedings. In forfeiture proceedings under section 773 of the Code, the accused or his sureties that have signed a recognizance may be ordered to pay all or part of the debt acknowledged in the recognizance.
Continue reading “Recognizances and Forfeiture Proceedings”
