INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
If an attempt to commit an offence is charged, but the evidence shows the complete offence was committed, the accused may be convicted of the attempt unless the judge discharges the jury and orders indictment for the complete offence.
SECTION WORDING
661(1) Where an attempt to commit an offence is charged but the evidence establishes the commission of the complete offence, the accused is not entitled to be acquitted, but the jury may convict him of the attempt unless the judge presiding at the trial, in his discretion, discharges the jury from giving a verdict and directs that the accused be indicted for the complete offence.
EXPLANATION
Section 661(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the legal principle of "lesser included offences" in criminal trials. Specifically, the provision addresses situations where a defendant is charged with attempting to commit a particular crime, but during the trial, the evidence presented establishes that the defendant actually committed the full offence. In such cases, Section 661(1) stipulates that the defendant is not entitled to an acquittal. Instead, the jury is allowed to convict the defendant of the "attempt" charge unless the presiding judge exercises their discretion to discharge the jury and order a new indictment for the full offence. Essentially, this means that the judge can choose to either allow the lesser charge to stand or to elevate the charges to reflect the full offence that has been committed. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that defendants are not able to evade criminal liability by merely attempting to commit a crime, but then avoid conviction when it is revealed that they actually fully committed the offence. By enabling prosecutors to charge defendants with both attempt and the full offense, Section 661(1) empowers the justice system to hold those who have committed criminal acts to account for their actions. Overall, Section 661(1) reflects Canada's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is served in criminal trials. It provides an important legal framework for prosecuting crimes, holding offenders accountable, and protecting the interests of victims and the broader public.
COMMENTARY
Section 661(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a clear direction for the courts when considering charges for attempted offenses, particularly in cases where the evidence supports a conviction for the complete offense. This section outlines that an accused who has been charged with an attempt to commit an offense is not entitled to an acquittal if it is proven that they have committed the complete offense. However, the presiding judge has the discretion to discharge the jury and direct the accused to be indicted for the complete offense. This provision seeks to ensure that the criminal justice system is not undermined by technicalities that may arise as a result of a strict interpretation of the law. Often, individuals charged with attempted offenses may have had the same intent as someone who has committed the complete offense, and in some cases, may have even taken steps towards the commission of that offense. In such cases, it would not be fair to allow the accused person to escape liability for the complete offense merely because they were charged with an attempt. Furthermore, this provision recognizes the important role played by the presiding judge in ensuring that justice is served. The judge has the discretion to discharge the jury and direct the accused to be indicted for the complete offense. This discretion reflects the fact that judges are best placed to make informed decisions about the legal issues before them, taking into account the unique circumstances of each case. Therefore, this provision empowers judges to do what is necessary to ensure that justice is done in each case. It is important to note that this provision also serves as a deterrent to individuals who may be considering committing an offense. The knowledge that they may not be able to escape liability for the complete offense, even if they were only charged with attempted offense may cause potential offenders to reconsider their actions. This, in turn, contributes to the prevention of crime, which is a crucial aspect of criminal justice. In conclusion, Section 661(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides clear and necessary guidance for the courts when considering charges for attempted offenses, particularly in cases where the evidence supports a conviction for the complete offense. This provision seeks to ensure that the criminal justice system is not undermined by technicalities that may arise as a result of a strict interpretation of the law. It empowers judges to make informed decisions and ensures that justice is served in each case. Overall, this provision plays an important role in maintaining the integrity of Canada's criminal justice system.
STRATEGY
Section 661(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is one of the provisions that criminal lawyers need to keep in mind when dealing with criminal cases that involve attempted offences. It provides a framework that allows for the conviction of accused persons who have attempted to commit an offence but where the evidence presented during the trial points to the commission of the complete offence instead. One of the strategic considerations when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code is the possibility of securing a conviction for an attempted offence instead of a complete offence. This can be beneficial to the accused person as convictions for attempted offences usually attract lesser penalties than those for the complete offence. Therefore, an accused person who is facing a charge for a complete offence but the evidence points to an attempted offence may opt to plead guilty to the latter charge in exchange for a reduced penalty. This strategy may be employed where the prosecution has weak evidence to support a charge for the complete offence. Another strategic consideration is the possibility of seeking a discharge from the jury when the evidence points to the commission of a complete offence. This strategy may be employed where an accused person is charged with an attempted offence, but the evidence presented at trial points to the commission of the complete offence instead. The presiding judge may discharge the jury from giving a verdict and direct that the accused be indicted for the complete offence. This strategy may be attractive where the prosecution has presented strong evidence to support a charge for the complete offence and the defence has no option but to concede. A third strategic consideration when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code is the possibility of presenting an argument to the judge to motivate the exercise of discretion when considering a conviction for an attempted offence. This may be an attractive option where the defence has strong evidence to support a plea of not guilty for the complete offence. The presiding judge has discretion to allow for a conviction of an attempted offence even where the evidence supports a charge for the complete offence. Therefore, the defence counsel could present compelling reasons to motivate the presiding judge to exercise discretion and convict the accused person of the attempted offence instead. In conclusion, section 661(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an essential provision that criminal lawyers need to keep in mind when dealing with criminal cases that involve attempted offences. Some of the strategic considerations when dealing with this section include the possibility of securing a conviction for an attempted offence instead of a complete offence, seeking a discharge from the jury when the evidence points to the commission of a complete offence, and presenting an argument to the judge to motivate the exercise of discretion when considering a conviction for an attempted offence. Effective implementation of these strategies can prove to be beneficial to the accused person and even change the course of the case.