INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
An accused can change their chosen mode of trial before or after a preliminary inquiry.
SECTION WORDING
561.1(3) An accused who has elected or is deemed to have elected a mode of trial and has requested a preliminary inquiry under subsection 536.1(3) may, as of right, re-elect to be tried by the other mode of trial at any time before the completion of the preliminary inquiry or before the 15th day after its completion.
EXPLANATION
Section 561.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an accused person with the option to change the mode of their trial before or after the completion of the preliminary inquiry. An accused person may choose to elect or be deemed to have elected a particular mode of trial, such as a trial by judge alone or a trial by judge and jury, at the beginning of their trial. However, if the accused person has requested a preliminary inquiry under subsection 536.1(3), they may re-elect to be tried by the other mode of trial at any time before the completion of the preliminary inquiry or before the 15th day after its completion. This section of the Criminal Code is intended to protect the rights of the accused person by allowing them to change the mode of their trial if they believe it will result in a fairer trial or better outcome. Additionally, it ensures that the accused person has ample time to make a decision based on the outcome of the preliminary inquiry, which can provide valuable information about the strength of the Crown's case. Overall, this section of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an important safeguard for individuals accused of a crime, allowing them to make changes to their trial process in order to ensure they receive a fair and just outcome.
COMMENTARY
Section 561.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows an accused who has elected or is deemed to have elected a mode of trial and has requested a preliminary inquiry the right to re-elect to be tried by the other mode of trial at any time before the completion of the preliminary inquiry or before the 15th day after its completion. This provision is significant because it allows an accused to change their mind about the mode of trial they want after they have already made an election. The two modes of trial that an accused can choose from are a trial by judge alone or a trial by judge and jury. The choice of mode of trial has significant consequences for an accused as it can affect the outcome of their trial. A trial by judge and jury allows for a jury to hear the evidence and make a decision on guilt or innocence, whereas a trial by judge alone allows for a judge to make the decision. A trial by judge and jury is generally considered to be more favourable to an accused as it allows for a panel of people to make the decision instead of just one person. The right to re-elect to be tried by the other mode of trial is important because it allows an accused to reconsider their choice based on a variety of factors. For example, an accused may choose a trial by judge and jury with the belief that a jury will be more sympathetic to their case. However, after further review of the evidence, the accused may come to the conclusion that a judge alone would be better equipped to make a fair and impartial decision. The ability to change their mind allows for the accused to have more control over the outcome of their trial. Furthermore, the right to re-elect to be tried by the other mode of trial also provides an opportunity for an accused to correct any mistakes they may have made in their original election. This could include situations where an accused may not have fully understood the differences between the two modes of trial, or situations where an accused was coerced into making a particular election. Allowing an accused to change their mind gives them the opportunity to correct any mistakes they may have made and ensures that they are given a fair trial. However, it is important to note that the right to re-elect to be tried by the other mode of trial is not unlimited. An accused must make the decision to change their election before the completion of the preliminary inquiry or within 15 days after its completion. This ensures that the proceedings do not become unduly delayed and that the trial can proceed as quickly as possible. Additionally, an accused will only be allowed to re-elect once, which means that they must carefully consider their options before making a final decision. In conclusion, Section 561.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada grants an important right to an accused by allowing them to change their mind about the mode of trial they want. This provision ensures that an accused has more control over the outcome of their trial and allows them to correct any mistakes they may have made in their original election. At the same time, the limitations on this right ensure that the proceedings do not become unnecessarily delayed and that the trial can proceed as smoothly as possible. Overall, this provision is an important safeguard for the fairness of criminal trials in Canada.
STRATEGY
Section 561.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an accused with the option of changing their mode of trial at any time before the completion of the preliminary inquiry or before the 15th day after its completion. This section of the Code opens up a range of strategic considerations for an accused and their counsel when preparing for trial. One of the key strategic considerations is weighing up the benefits and drawbacks of each mode of trial. The accused and their counsel will need to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each option and make an informed decision as to which mode of trial is best suited to their case. For example, a jury trial may offer the accused a greater chance of acquittal due to the unpredictability of the jury's decision-making, while a judge-alone trial may offer a more predictable outcome. Ultimately, the decision will depend on the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the evidence, the severity of the charges, and the preferences of the accused. Another key strategic consideration is timing. The accused and their counsel will need to carefully assess the timing of the re-election decision, taking into account the progress of the case, the strength of the evidence, and the availability of witnesses. For example, if the accused has elected a trial by judge and then learns of new evidence that suggests a jury may be more sympathetic, they may need to consider re-electing early in the process to secure a jury trial. On the other hand, if the accused has strong evidence that is likely to lead to a quick resolution of the case, they may choose to delay their re-election decision until after the preliminary inquiry, to avoid unnecessary delays. The selection of counsel and their experience with the specific mode of trial is also an important consideration. The accused will want to ensure that they have legal representation that is experienced and skilled in the specific mode of trial they have chosen. For example, if the accused has chosen a trial by jury, they will want a lawyer who has experience conducting jury trials, selecting jurors, and developing effective trial strategies that resonate with a jury. Another key strategy that may be employed is negotiation with the Crown. If the accused and their counsel determine that a change of mode of trial is in their best interest, they may attempt to negotiate with the Crown to agree to the change, rather than making the application unilaterally. A negotiated change may avoid the need for a preliminary inquiry, lead to a quicker resolution of the case, and reduce costs for all parties involved. In conclusion, section 561.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides significant strategic considerations for an accused and their counsel in deciding whether to change their mode of trial. Careful assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of each option, timing, the selection of counsel, and negotiation with the Crown are all important considerations in obtaining the best possible outcome for the accused.