Criminal Code of Canada - section 485(3) - Dismissal for want of prosecution

section 485(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

If no summons or warrant is issued within a certain time frame, the case is dismissed and cannot be restarted unless specified by Section 485.1.

SECTION WORDING

485(3) Where no summons or warrant is issued under subsection (2) within the period provided therein, the proceedings shall be deemed to be dismissed for want of prosecution and shall not be recommenced except in accordance with section 485.1.

EXPLANATION

Section 485(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to situations wherein charges have been laid against an individual or individuals, but no summons or warrant has been issued within the period specified in subsection (2). Essentially, the section specifies that if this occurs, the proceedings against the accused will be deemed dismissed for want of prosecution. It is important to note that this dismissal will only apply if the time period provided in subsection (2) has elapsed. However, it is also important to recognize that this dismissal does not mean that the charges themselves have been dropped. Rather, they have simply been dismissed due to a failure of prosecution. If the prosecution wishes to pursue the charges further, they must follow the procedures outlined in section 485.1. This may entail seeking an extension of time to issue the summons or warrant, or potentially requesting a new one. Overall, section 485(3) serves to emphasize the importance of timely and efficient prosecution in criminal cases. It ensures that the accused are not left in a state of legal limbo, waiting for charges to be brought against them indefinitely. At the same time, it also places some onus on the prosecution to move forward with their case in a timely manner, or risk the charges being deemed dismissed.

COMMENTARY

Section 485(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines a necessary safeguard for accused individuals against prolonged, unjustified delays in the court process. It provides for the dismissal of proceedings in cases where no summons or warrant has been issued within the specified time period, effectively holding the prosecution accountable for ensuring that the case moves forward within a reasonable timeframe. This provision is critical in ensuring that criminal justice is not unduly delayed, as such delays can have significant consequences for both the accused individual and society more broadly. For one, a prolonged court process can be incredibly stressful for the accused, especially if they are being held in custody throughout the proceedings. It can also be financially and emotionally taxing, as the accused may have to put their life on hold for an extended period of time, not knowing when the case will be resolved. Additionally, delays can result in a backlog of cases, potentially clogging up the court system, and further impeding access to justice for all involved. Furthermore, dismissing proceedings for want of prosecution helps to ensure accountability and transparency in the criminal justice system. By holding the prosecution responsible for ensuring the case progresses within the specified time, it encourages them to prioritize and manage their workload effectively. It is worth noting that while this provision does not preclude the prosecution from taking appropriate measures to continue the case later on, it does provide a necessary mechanism for dismissal when necessary. However, it is important to acknowledge that this provision may not always serve its intended purpose. For one, it is possible for prosecutors to circumvent the timeframe by issuing a summons or warrant at the last minute, effectively rendering the provision moot. In such cases, the accused may still be subject to lengthy delays, despite the framework put in place by the law. Additionally, there may be cases where dismissing the proceedings is not in the best interest of justice, such as in cases where a serious crime has been committed, but the prosecution has missed the deadline due to unforeseeable circumstances. Overall, Section 485(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that serves to protect the rights of the accused and maintain accountability and transparency in the criminal justice system. However, it is important to consider its limitations and explore ways to further strengthen these safeguards against undue delay. Ultimately, such efforts can help to ensure that justice is served in a timely and fair manner for all involved.

STRATEGY

Section 485(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that provides an accused person with a right to have their matter disposed of expeditiously. This section places an obligation on the Crown to take action within a specified time, failing which, the proceedings will be deemed to be dismissed for want of prosecution. As such, it is important for defence counsel to be aware of this provision and consider various strategies that can be employed to take advantage of it. One of the primary strategic considerations when dealing with Section 485(3) is timing. It is important for defence counsel to be aware of the timelines specified in the provision and to keep a close eye on the progress of the prosecution's case. If the Crown fails to issue a summons or warrant within the prescribed period, defence counsel can bring an application to have the matter dismissed. This can be a powerful tool in negotiations with the Crown, as it provides an incentive for them to move quickly with the case or risk losing it altogether. Another important strategic consideration when dealing with Section 485(3) is the potential impact on bail. If the matter is dismissed for want of prosecution, the accused person may be entitled to be released from custody, depending on the circumstances. Defence counsel should be aware of the impact that a dismissal could have on their client's bail and be prepared to take appropriate action to secure their release. In addition to timing and bail considerations, there are several other strategies that defence counsel can employ when dealing with Section 485(3). One such strategy is to raise the issue of delay early on in the proceedings. By doing so, defence counsel can put pressure on the Crown to move more quickly with the case and avoid the potential for dismissal under Section 485(3). Another strategy is to bring an application for a stay of proceedings based on violation of the accused's right to a speedy trial under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This strategy can be particularly effective if the Crown has been slow to move with the case and has not taken steps to avoid a dismissal under Section 485(3). Overall, Section 485(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an important right to accused persons to have their matters dealt with expeditiously. Defence counsel must be aware of this provision and consider various strategies that can be employed to take advantage of it. By doing so, they can ensure that their clients' rights are protected and that justice is done in a timely manner.