Criminal Code of Canada - section 669.2(2) - Where adjudication is made

section 669.2(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

If a verdict has been reached in a trial, the judge in any subsequent proceedings must impose the appropriate punishment or order authorized by law without any additional input from the accused.

SECTION WORDING

669.2(2) Where a verdict was rendered by a jury or an adjudication was made by a judge, provincial court judge, justice or other person before whom the trial was commenced, the judge, provincial court judge, justice or other person before whom the proceedings are continued shall, without further election by an accused, impose the punishment or make the order that is authorized by law in the circumstances.

EXPLANATION

Section 669.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that governs the role of judges and other presiding officers in imposing punishment or making orders in criminal cases where a trial by judge or jury has already determined guilty verdicts. In such cases, the law authorizes the court to impose punishments or orders based on the verdict. The purpose of this provision is to streamline the criminal justice process and ensure that sentencing is consistent and efficient. The section states that the judge, provincial court judge, justice, or any other presiding officer should make the orders or impose the punishment authorized by law in the circumstances, without further election by the accused. This provision also ensures that a defendant who has been found guilty receives a fair and impartial sentence. After a verdict, the judge or other presiding officer is required to take into account various factors such as the nature of the crime, the circumstances of the offender, and any previous criminal record. The judge must then impose a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offense and reasonable in the circumstances. Overall, section 669.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada reflects the principle of proportionality in criminal sentencing and ensures that the sentence imposed is consistent with the nature of the crime and fair to the offender. This provision helps to promote a just and effective criminal justice system in Canada.

COMMENTARY

In criminal trials, the verdict or adjudication made by a jury or judge determines the next steps for the accused. Section 669.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that when a verdict or adjudication has been made, the subsequent judge or justice handling the case does not need an election" by the accused about punishment or orders. Rather, he or she is required to impose the punishment or make the order authorized by law in the given circumstances. This section of the Criminal Code removes the need for the accused to make any decisions regarding their sentence after their conviction. However, it does not take away the decision-making power of the court. The judge is still able to choose what punishment or order is appropriate, according to the law. This ensures that the sentence is fair and based on the individual facts of the case. The use of the word continue" emphasizes the continued process of the trial and the fact that the accused will still need to face the consequences of their actions. This can be seen as a strong message from the Criminal Code that criminal behavior will not go unpunished. By removing the need for the accused to make an election, the court eliminates the possibility of a mistrial caused by a decision made in haste or under duress. This is because the accused is no longer given the opportunity to make a decision about their own sentence, which could potentially be flawed or influenced by external factors. However, there are criticisms of this section of the Criminal Code. Some argue that it takes away the opportunity for the accused to have a say in their own punishment. They argue that this may lead to feelings of resentment and frustration from the accused, which could hinder their rehabilitation process. Critics also argue that the judge's decision could potentially be influenced by their personal biases or opinions. This could result in harsher or more lenient punishments depending on external factors. Overall, section 669.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada has its benefits and drawbacks. On one hand, it ensures fair and appropriate sentencing for convicted criminals. On the other hand, it takes away the accused's ability to have a say in their own punishment, which may cause negative consequences. Ultimately, the effectiveness of this section of the Criminal Code depends on how it is implemented and enforced by the Canadian justice system.

STRATEGY

Section 669.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves to streamline the process of sentencing an accused individual who has been found guilty by a judge or a jury. This section mandates that the judge or adjudicator who presides over the ongoing proceedings following the verdict must impose the punishment or order that is authorized by law, without requiring an additional decision or election from the accused. In light of the implications of this section, there are several strategic considerations that criminal lawyers and their clients must keep in mind when dealing with it. One of the primary strategic considerations is the importance of securing the most favorable outcome possible during the initial trial or adjudication phase. If an accused individual is found guilty, they will have little control over the eventual outcome of their case, and may lose the opportunity to present mitigating factors or negotiate a plea deal. As such, defense lawyers must prepare their cases thoroughly, present a compelling defense, and work closely with their clients to ensure that they understand the potential consequences of a guilty verdict. Another important strategic consideration is the need for transparency and consistency in the initial sentencing process. Since the judge or adjudicator who imposes the final punishment or order is bound by the verdict or adjudication of guilt, it is important that the initial sentencing phase is fair and reasonable. This can help to prevent delays or appeals of the final verdict. One possible strategy that can be employed in this context is to focus on mitigation. If an accused individual learns that they are likely to be found guilty, they may wish to take steps to mitigate their sentence or order by presenting evidence of mitigating circumstances. This could include demonstrating their remorse for their actions, their commitment to rehabilitation, or their cooperation with law enforcement. By presenting these factors early on, a defendant may be able to influence the outcome of their case and secure a more favorable sentence. Another strategy is to work with the prosecuting attorney to negotiate a plea deal. While section 669.2(2) removes the accused's ability to elect their punishment or order, it does not prevent them from negotiating a plea deal. If the prosecuting attorney is willing to offer a plea deal that results in a reduced sentence or order, an accused individual may choose to accept it rather than risk a harsher punishment. In conclusion, section 669.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays an important role in the criminal justice system, by mandating that judges and adjudicators impose the punishment or order authorized by law without requiring an additional decision or election from the accused. Criminal lawyers and their clients must carefully consider the implications of this section and employ effective strategies to mitigate its impact. By preparing their cases thoroughly, presenting compelling defenses, and negotiating plea deals, defense lawyers and their clients can secure the most favorable outcome possible.