INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
An accused convicted of attempting to commit an offence is not liable to be retried for that offence.
SECTION WORDING
661(2) An accused who is convicted under this section is not liable to be tried again for the offence that he was charged with attempting to commit.
EXPLANATION
Section 661(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides important protection to accused individuals who have been convicted of attempting to commit a criminal offence. This section serves to prevent accused individuals from being subject to double jeopardy, which is the concept of being tried for the same offence more than once. When an individual is charged with attempting to commit a criminal offence under Canadian law, they may be convicted of this offence if the Crown is able to prove that they had the intent to commit the offence and took substantial steps towards its commission. However, if the accused is convicted of this offence under section 661(2), they cannot be tried again for the same offence that they were attempting to commit. This protection is important for two reasons. First, it ensures that once an accused has been held accountable for their actions, they cannot be subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same conduct. This prevents the unnecessary use of resources and ensures that the justice system is operating fairly and efficiently. Second, it recognizes that attempting to commit a criminal offence is a lesser offence than actually committing the offence. Therefore, an individual who has been convicted of attempting to commit an offence should not be subject to the same level of punishment that would be imposed for the actual commission of the offence. Section 661(2) reflects this understanding by ensuring that once an accused has been held accountable for attempting to commit an offence, they cannot be punished further for the same conduct. Overall, section 661(2) plays an important role in the Canadian criminal justice system by protecting accused individuals from undue punishment and ensuring that justice is administered fairly and efficiently.
COMMENTARY
Section 661(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that an accused who is convicted of attempting to commit an offence is not liable to be tried again for the actual offence that was charged. This section serves as an important form of protection for individuals who may be wrongfully accused or who make mistakes in their attempts to commit a crime. The purpose of Section 661(2) is to ensure that individuals are not punished twice for the same offence. This is known as the principle of double jeopardy, which prohibits an individual from being tried or punished twice for the same offence. This principle is an important aspect of the Canadian justice system, and it helps to ensure that individuals are not subjected to unjust or excessive punishment. Section 661(2) is particularly important in situations where an individual attempts to commit a crime, but is not successful. In such situations, the individual may be charged with attempting to commit the crime, but may not be convicted of the actual offence. Without Section 661(2), the individual could potentially be tried again for the actual offence, even though they may have already been punished for their attempt to commit the crime. Additionally, Section 661(2) helps to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system. If an individual is wrongly accused of attempting to commit a crime, they could potentially be tried twice for the same offence if Section 661(2) did not exist. This would be a waste of time and resources for both the accused and the justice system as a whole. Overall, Section 661(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that helps to ensure that individuals are not punished twice for the same offence. It serves as a form of protection for individuals who may be wrongfully accused or who make mistakes in their attempts to commit a crime. By upholding the principle of double jeopardy, Section 661(2) helps to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system and ensures that individuals are treated fairly and justly.
STRATEGY
Section 661(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important aspect of the criminal justice system as it covers issues related to the application of the double jeopardy rule. This rule ensures that an accused person cannot be tried twice for the same offence, which is a fundamental principle in Canadian law. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that lawyers should take into account to ensure that their clients obtain the best possible outcome. Some of these considerations and strategies are discussed below. Consideration #1: The Standard of Proof A key strategic consideration in relation to section 661(2) is the standard of proof. In Canada, the Crown must prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet this standard, then the accused person is entitled to an acquittal. However, in certain cases, the Crown may not be able to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the offence that the accused was charged with but may still be able to demonstrate that the accused attempted to commit the offence. In such cases, section 661(2) would apply, and the accused would not be liable to be tried again for the original offence. The defence may consider arguing that the Crown has failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Consideration #2: The Evidence Another key strategic consideration when dealing with section 661(2) is the evidence that is presented. The evidence regarding the accused's attempt to commit the offence should be carefully analyzed to determine if it supports a conviction. The defence may put forward evidence to illustrate that the accused did not have the intention to commit the offence or did not take any actual steps towards committing the crime, which would be essential in challenging the Crown's evidence with respect to the attempted offence. Consideration #3: Plea Bargaining Plea bargaining is a common strategy in criminal trials in Canada, where the defence may negotiate with the Crown to secure a reduced sentence or lesser charges for their client. Since section 661(2) prevents an accused from being tried again for the offence that they were charged with attempting, a lawyer may recommend a plea of guilty to the attempted offence to avoid a potential greater sentence or punishment for the original offence. However, the defendant must be willing to engage in accepting the plea agreement, and the Crown must be prepared to offer it. Consideration #4: Sentencing One of the most strategic considerations when dealing with section 661(2) is sentencing. If the accused is convicted of the attempted offence, the court has the discretion to impose a sentence that is less severe than the potential punishment for the original offence. A lawyer may seek to convince the court to impose a minimal sentence, especially when the circumstances of the attempted offences presented don't suggest any foreseeable harm. Consideration #5: Appealability The final strategic consideration is the appealability of an accused person's case when one has been convicted of an attempted offence. Generally, the accused person could mount up an appeal, especially in instances where the Crown's evidence is in doubt or procedural errors were committed in the trial. Conclusion Section 661(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a vital aspect of the country's criminal justice system. When dealing with the section, lawyers must consider several strategic factors that could impact the outcome of the case. These include the standard of proof, evidence, plea bargaining, sentencing, and appealability. By effectively considering these and other strategic considerations, a lawyer can help their client to obtain the best possible result while also ensuring that justice is served.