INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Section 667(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the use of certificates as evidence in criminal proceedings.
SECTION WORDING
667(1) In any proceedings, (a) a certificate setting out with reasonable particularity the conviction or discharge under section 730, the finding of guilt under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, the finding of guilt under the Youth Criminal Justice Act or the conviction and sentence or finding of guilt and sentence in Canada of an offender is, on proof that the accused or defendant is the offender referred to in the certificate, evidence that the accused or defendant was so convicted, so discharged or so convicted and sentenced or found guilty and sentenced, without proof of the signature or the official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate, if it is signed by (i) the person who made the conviction, order for the discharge or finding of guilt, (ii) the clerk of the court in which the conviction, order for the discharge or finding of guilt was made, or (iii) a fingerprint examiner; (b) evidence that the fingerprints of the accused or defendant are the same as the fingerprints of the offender whose fingerprints are reproduced in or attached to a certificate issued under subparagraph (a)(iii) is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused or defendant is the offender referred to in that certificate; (c) a certificate of a fingerprint examiner stating that he has compared the fingerprints reproduced in or attached to that certificate with the fingerprints reproduced in or attached to a certificate issued under subparagraph (a)(iii) and that they are those of the same person is evidence of the statements contained in the certificate without proof of the signature or the official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate; and (d) a certificate under subparagraph (a)(iii) may be in Form 44, and a certificate under paragraph (c) may be in Form 45.
EXPLANATION
Section 667(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the legal weight that can be given to certificates in any criminal proceedings. This section states that if there is a certificate that sets out the conviction or discharge status of an offender with reasonable particularity, it can be presented as evidence in a court of law. The certificate can be signed by the person who made the conviction, order for discharge, or finding of guilt, the clerk of the court where the conviction or finding of guilt was made, or a fingerprint examiner. Additionally, if a certificate is issued under subparagraph (a)(iii) and has the fingerprints of the offender whose fingerprints have been reproduced or attached to it, then the certificate can be used as evidence if there is no evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, if there is a certificate of a fingerprint examiner that confirms that the fingerprints on the certificate are those of the same person, then the statements contained in the certificate can also be presented as evidence. This section allows for certificates to be considered as evidence without the need for the signature or the official character of the person who has signed the certificate to be proven. Lastly, it states that Form 44 may be used for certificates issued under subparagraph (a)(iii), and Form 45 may be used for certificates issued under paragraph (c). In summary, this section establishes the legal weight that can be given to certificates in criminal proceedings and specifies the conditions under which they can be used as evidence.
COMMENTARY
Section 667(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the legal validity of certificates related to a person's criminal record. These certificates, issued by various authorities upon conviction or discharge of an offender, can be used as evidence in court proceedings without requiring further proof of their authenticity. The section specifies that a certificate must be detailed enough to identify the individual convicted or discharged, and that it may be signed by the person who made the conviction or discharge order, the court clerk, or a fingerprint examiner. This requirement is reasonable, as it ensures that the certificate is issued by a qualified and reliable authority who can attest to the accuracy of the information recorded. The section also provides guidance on the use of fingerprint evidence in establishing a person's identity. If a certificate includes a person's fingerprints, and a subsequent examination confirms that they match those of the accused or defendant, this is considered proof that the accused or defendant is the same person referred to in the certificate. This provision allows for a reliable and objective method of identifying individuals in criminal proceedings. The use of certificates and fingerprint evidence can be particularly important in cases where the accused or defendant has a history of criminal activity, or where there is a need to establish prior criminal convictions or discharges. By relying on certificates and fingerprints, courts can avoid lengthy and potentially costly investigations into an individual's criminal history, which can help expedite the legal process. However, it is important to note that while certificates and fingerprint evidence can be useful tools in criminal proceedings, they should not be the sole basis for a conviction. Other evidence and testimony must also be considered in order to ensure a fair and just trial. Overall, Section 667(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a clear and practical framework for the use of certificates and fingerprint evidence in criminal proceedings. By stipulating the conditions under which this type of evidence can be used as proof, the section helps to ensure that the legal process is efficient, reliable, and just.
STRATEGY
Section 667(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a convenient method for the prosecution to introduce evidence of prior convictions or findings of guilt without having to produce the original court records or calling witnesses to testify. However, this section also raises some strategic considerations for both the prosecution and the defense, depending on the circumstances of the case. For the prosecution, the main advantage of using section 667(1) is that it can streamline the evidence process and avoid unnecessary delays or costs. Instead of having to obtain certified copies of court records or summon witnesses to testify about prior convictions or findings of guilt, the prosecutor can simply introduce a certificate that meets the requirements of the section and ask the court to take judicial notice of its contents. This can save time, reduce costs, and simplify the presentation of evidence, especially in cases with multiple prior convictions or findings of guilt. Moreover, since the section deems the certificate to be proof of the conviction or finding of guilt, the prosecutor does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused or defendant was actually convicted or found guilty, but merely that they are the same person referred to in the certificate. However, the prosecution should also be aware of some potential drawbacks or limitations of section 667(1). One issue is that the section only applies to convictions or findings of guilt in Canada, not in foreign jurisdictions. Therefore, if the prosecutor wishes to introduce evidence of a prior conviction or finding of guilt from another country, they may have to rely on other provisions of the Criminal Code or common law principles of evidence. Another issue is that the section only applies to certificates that meet the particular requirements specified in the section, such as the need for reasonable particularity, signature by an authorized person, and comparison of fingerprints. If the certificate does not comply with these requirements, or if the defense challenges its authenticity, accuracy, or relevance, the prosecution may have to call witnesses to testify or produce additional evidence to support its case. For the defense, the main challenge posed by section 667(1) is the potential prejudice that may arise from the introduction of multiple prior convictions or findings of guilt. If the accused or defendant has a history of criminal convictions or findings of guilt, the jury or judge may be more likely to infer a propensity to commit criminal offenses or a lack of credibility or trustworthiness. Therefore, the defense may seek to challenge the use of section 667(1) as unduly prejudicial, or to argue that the prior convictions or findings of guilt are not relevant to the present case. Moreover, the defense may try to undermine the reliability or validity of the certificate by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses who prepared or signed it, or by presenting evidence that suggests that the accused or defendant is not the same person referred to in the certificate. In light of these strategic considerations, both the prosecution and the defense may employ various strategies to maximize their chances of success in dealing with section 667(1). Some strategies that the prosecution may use include: - Conducting a thorough investigation of the accused or defendant's criminal history to identify all relevant prior convictions or findings of guilt, and obtaining certified copies of court records as early as possible. - Ensuring that the certificates comply with the requirements of section 667(1), and providing copies to the defense in advance to avoid any surprises or objections. - Anticipating potential challenges to the authenticity, accuracy, or relevance of the certificates, and preparing rebuttal evidence or arguments to address them. - Balancing the probative value of the prior convictions or findings of guilt against their potential prejudicial effect, and seeking judicial guidance or rulings on the admissibility and scope of the evidence. Some strategies that the defense may use include: - Challenging the admissibility of the certificates under section 667(1) as unduly prejudicial, irrelevant, or unreliable, and presenting alternative arguments or evidence to counter the prosecution's case. - Cross-examining the prosecution witnesses who prepared or signed the certificates to highlight any discrepancies, errors, or omissions, and to cast doubt on their credibility or expertise. - Presenting evidence that suggests that the accused or defendant is not the same person referred to in the certificates, such as alibi evidence, contradictory testimony, or expert opinions on fingerprint analysis. - Seeking judicial instructions or limiting instructions to ensure that the jury or judge does not use the prior convictions or findings of guilt as evidence of propensity or character, but only for specific permissible purposes. Overall, section 667(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada can be a valuable tool for the prosecution to introduce evidence of prior convictions or findings of guilt, but it also poses challenges and risks that require careful strategic planning and execution. The prosecution and defense should both be aware of the potential benefits and drawbacks of the section, and adapt their strategies accordingly to best serve their respective interests.