INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section allows a court or judge to issue a summons or warrant for the arrest of an accused or defendant if jurisdiction has been lost and not regained within three months.
SECTION WORDING
485(2) Where jurisdiction over an accused or a defendant is lost and has not been regained, a court, judge, provincial court judge or justice may, within three months after the loss of jurisdiction, issue a summons, or if it or he considers it necessary in the public interest, a warrant for the arrest of the accused or defendant.
EXPLANATION
Section 485(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada lays out the procedure to be followed when jurisdiction over an accused or defendant is lost and has not been regained. This often occurs in situations where an accused or defendant has left the jurisdiction or fled the country and cannot be located. In such cases, the court may issue a summons or warrant for their arrest within three months of losing jurisdiction. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that accused or defendants who have fled or absconded do not escape from the consequences of their actions and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The three-month time limit is an important safeguard that prevents an accused or defendant from being subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention by the authorities. The court must be satisfied that the arrest is necessary in the public interest before issuing a warrant. The court, judge, provincial court judge, or justice has the discretion to issue a summons or warrant. A summons is a legal document that requires the accused or defendant to appear in court at a specified time and place. A warrant, on the other hand, authorizes the police to arrest the accused or defendant and bring them before the court. In summary, Section 485(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a safeguard that ensures that accused or defendants who have fled or absconded do not escape justice. It also ensures that the rights of accused or defendants are protected by preventing arbitrary arrest or detention.
COMMENTARY
Section 485(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important mechanism through which the legal system can ensure that accused or defendants face their charges in court. It allows for the issuance of a summons or warrant for arrest where jurisdiction over an accused or defendant has been lost and not regained within three months. This provision provides an effective means of ensuring that accused or defendants do not evade justice simply because they move out of the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a critical concept in the Canadian legal system. It refers to the legal authority of a court to hear a case and make a decision. If jurisdiction is lost in a case, it means that the legal authority to make a decision about the case is lost. This can happen for various reasons, such as a change of residence by the accused or defendant, a change of circumstances, or the expiration of a limitation period. When jurisdiction is lost, it can be difficult to ensure that the accused or defendant faces their charges in the appropriate court. However, section 485(2) provides a solution to this problem. It allows for the issuance of a summons or warrant for arrest within three months after the loss of jurisdiction. This means that even if an accused or defendant moves out of the jurisdiction, they can still be brought to court to face their charges. One of the key benefits of section 485(2) is that it helps to ensure that the legal system functions fairly and efficiently. It ensures that individuals who are accused of crimes are held accountable for their actions, regardless of where they move. This provision also helps to ensure that the legal system is not burdened with unnecessary delays or costs, as it allows for the swift issuance of a summons or warrant if necessary. However, it is important to note that section 485(2) must be used responsibly and judiciously. The issuance of a summons or warrant for arrest should only be done if it is necessary in the public interest. This means that the decision to issue a summons or warrant should be based on careful consideration of the circumstances of the case and the potential impact on the accused or defendant. Overall, section 485(2) is a valuable provision that helps to ensure that the legal system functions fairly and efficiently. It provides an effective means of ensuring that accused or defendants do not evade justice simply because they move out of the jurisdiction. However, it must be used responsibly and judiciously to ensure that the rights of all parties are respected.
STRATEGY
Section 485(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial aspect in the criminal justice system that outlines rules governing the jurisdiction loss of a case and the possibility of the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused within three months after such jurisdiction loss. Several strategic considerations come into play when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada. This paper discusses some of these considerations and strategies that can be employed by the parties involved. One of the central strategic considerations is the need to act fast once jurisdiction is lost. According to the law, a court, judge, provincial court judge, or justice has three months to issue a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused. Any delay beyond the stipulated three months could result in the loss of the opportunity to prosecute the accused, leading to an entire case collapse. As such, the parties involved must act promptly once jurisdiction is lost. The affected parties, including the prosecution and the defense, must gather all the necessary information and evidence and move to secure a proper summons or warrant as soon as possible. Another strategic consideration is the importance of using relevant legal precedents and comparators when arguing the case. Legal precedents refer to past cases that have similar legal issues, facts, and procedural situations. They are essential in providing a framework for legal reasoning and argumentation and in predicting the outcome of a similar case. In addition, comparators or case law from other jurisdictions may also be relevant in addressing some of the issues raised by Section 485(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Using these comparators can broaden the legal perspectives of the parties involved, strengthening their legal arguments and potentially leading to a better outcome for their case. Thirdly, parties need to be mindful of plausible defenses that may be raised to oppose the re-revocation of jurisdiction. For instance, defense counsel could argue that the accused has already been prejudiced by the delay in the prosecution, thereby violating their Charter rights. Therefore, it's essential to anticipate and prepare for these defenses in advance and determine a counter-argument that would be effective in neutralizing them. Lastly, the parties must be aware of the potential consequences of their actions as everything they do will have an impact on the public interest. For example, issuing a warrant for the arrest of the accused may result in additional public safety risks. Alternatively, a failure to prosecute the accused may have implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the judicial system. Therefore, it's essential to consider all of the associated public interest implications before taking any action. In conclusion, it is important to act fast and diligently to address and resolve a loss of jurisdiction situation under Section 485(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The parties involved must consider several strategic considerations and employ appropriate strategies, including expediting the process, seeking legal precedence and comparators, anticipating plausible defenses, and being aware of the broader public interest implications. Adopting these strategies will help ensure effective and efficient management of cases involving jurisdiction loss, ultimately leading to better outcomes for everyone involved.