INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Accused persons may apply for a review of an order made by a justice or judge before their trial.
SECTION WORDING
520(1) If a justice, or a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice, makes an order under subsection 515(2), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (12) or makes or vacates any order under paragraph 523(2)(b), the accused may, at any time before the trial of the charge, apply to a judge for a review of the order.
EXPLANATION
Section 520(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an accused with the right to apply for a review of any order made by a justice or judge before the trial of the charge. The orders mentioned in this section include those made under subsections 515(2), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (12), or those made or vacated under paragraph 523(2)(b). Subsection 515(2) deals with the release of an accused on conditions, while subsections (5), (6), and (7) deal with the detention of the accused. Subsections (8) and (12) relate to the review of detention orders and the variation of conditions, respectively. Paragraph 523(2)(b) addresses the variation or revocation of orders made under section 522 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which relates to the setting of a date and time for the preliminary inquiry. The review process provided by section 520(1) gives an accused an opportunity to challenge any orders made by a justice or judge before the trial, thereby affording them a fair and just proceeding. The review may be sought on various grounds, including a legal error or an abuse of discretion by the justice or judge in making the original order. Overall, Section 520(1) is a crucial provision in ensuring that the rights of an accused are protected, and that the administration of justice is fair and impartial. It allows for a review of any orders made that could have a significant impact on the accused's rights or liberty and ensures that such orders are made within the bounds of the law.
COMMENTARY
Section 520(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada grants accused individuals the right to apply for a review of orders made by a justice or judge in relation to their case. This section lays out the specific circumstances under which an accused can apply for such a review, including subsections 515(2), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (12) or paragraph 523(2)(b). The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected and that they have a fair trial. It provides an avenue for an accused person to challenge an order that they feel is unfair, whether it be related to their release from custody or other aspects of their case. This provision also serves to check the power of judges and ensure that they are making lawful and appropriate orders. Importantly, this section allows for the review to take place before the trial of the charge, meaning that the accused can challenge the order in a timely manner, without having to wait for the trial to conclude. This can be crucial for those who are being held in custody as the review could potentially result in their release. The provision of review is not an automatic process, and the accused must make an application for it to take place. The application must be made to a judge, who will review the order and make a determination about whether or not it should be upheld or changed. The judge may consider evidence and arguments from both the accused and the Crown in making their decision. While this provision is an important safeguard for the rights of the accused, it is not without its limitations. For example, the accused must have the resources and knowledge to make an application for review, which means that those who are most vulnerable or marginalized may struggle to access this remedy. Overall, section 520(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that ensures fairness and due process for accused individuals in the criminal justice system. It allows for orders made by judges to be reviewed and potentially overturned, ensuring that the protection of the rights of the accused remains a cornerstone of Canadian criminal law.
STRATEGY
Section 520(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an opportunity for an accused person to apply for a review of an order made by a justice or a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice under subsections 515(2), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (12), or to make or vacate an order under paragraph 523(2)(b). This section provides an important opportunity for the accused to seek a review of an order that is perceived to be unfair or unjust. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that one must keep in mind. Some of these considerations include: 1. Timing of the Application: It is important to time the application for review carefully. The application must be made before the trial of the charge. However, making the application too early may result in the court rejecting the application. It is, therefore, important to wait until all the relevant facts are available before making the application. 2. Grounds for Review: The accused must have grounds for the review. These grounds must be set out in the application and must be based on the facts of the case. The grounds could include errors in law, errors in fact, or a failure to consider relevant evidence. 3. Supporting Evidence: It is important to provide supporting evidence for the grounds of the review. This could involve calling witnesses, presenting documents, or providing expert opinion. The evidence must be relevant and admissible. 4. Procedural Considerations: The application for review must be made in accordance with the relevant procedural rules. This includes serving the application on the Crown and ensuring that all necessary documents are filed with the court. 5. Strategic Considerations: The accused must consider the strategic implications of making the application. For example, making an application for review may delay the trial, which could be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on the circumstances of the case. The accused must also consider the likelihood of success and the potential consequences of an unsuccessful application. To successfully navigate this section of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategies that could be employed. These include: 1. Engaging Experienced Counsel: It is important to engage experienced counsel when making an application for review. Experienced counsel can provide valuable advice on the grounds for review, the supporting evidence, and the procedural requirements. 2. Conducting a Thorough Analysis of the Order: To identify potential grounds for review, it is important to conduct a thorough analysis of the order. This could involve reviewing the transcript of the hearing, consulting with witnesses, and conducting legal research. 3. Building a Strong Evidentiary Record: To increase the chances of success, it is important to build a strong evidentiary record. This could involve calling relevant witnesses, presenting documentary evidence, and obtaining expert opinion. 4. Identifying Potential Consequences: It is important to identify the potential consequences of an unsuccessful application for review. This could include an adverse inference being drawn against the accused, increased scrutiny by the court, and potential delays in the trial. 5. Consideration of Alternatives: Before making an application for review, it is important to consider alternatives. For example, if the grounds for review relate to the exclusion of evidence, it may be more advantageous to seek a remedy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In conclusion, Section 520(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an important opportunity for the accused to seek a review of an order made by a justice or a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice. When dealing with this section, it is important to keep in mind the strategic considerations, including timing of the application, grounds for review, supporting evidence, procedural requirements, and strategic implications. Employing the right strategies, engaging experienced counsel, conducting a thorough analysis of the order, building a strong evidentiary record, identifying potential consequences, and considering alternatives, can increase the chances of success and lead to a fair and just outcome for the accused.