section 672.33(5)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section allows courts to determine how a mental health inquiry is conducted and use the procedures of a preliminary inquiry if deemed necessary for the interests of justice.

SECTION WORDING

672.33(5) The court may determine the manner in which an inquiry under this section is conducted and may follow the practices and procedures in respect of a preliminary inquiry under Part XVIII where it concludes that the interests of justice so require.

EXPLANATION

Section 672.33(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows the court to use its discretion in determining the manner in which an inquiry is conducted under this section. This inquiry is related to a designated accused person who is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. In such cases, the court may follow the practices and procedures used in a preliminary inquiry under Part XVIII of the Criminal Code where it believes that the interests of justice demand it. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence present to warrant a trial for a criminal offence. Similarly, an inquiry under section 672.33(5) is aimed at determining the risk that the accused person poses to society, their mental condition, and the appropriate legal and medical treatment they should receive. The court may apply similar practices and procedures in both an inquiry under section 672.33 and in a preliminary inquiry due to the similarities in their objectives. Where deemed necessary, the court may, for example, hear evidence from psychiatric experts, review medical records, and listen to submissions from both the prosecution and defense counsels. The court will then make a decision based on this information, taking into account the interests of justice. Ultimately, section 672.33(5) provides the court with flexibility to ensure that the inquiry is conducted efficiently, effectively, and in accordance with the needs of the particular situation.

COMMENTARY

Section 672.33(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada grants the court the power to determine the manner in which an inquiry under this section is conducted. It also enables the court to follow the practices and procedures in respect of a preliminary inquiry under Part XVIII if it believes that the interests of justice require it. This provision essentially implies that the court has a certain degree of flexibility when it comes to conducting an inquiry, and may customize the proceedings according to the situation at hand. The flexibility granted under this section reflects the idea that each case is unique, and thus, the court must have the discretion to adapt its approach to best suit those varying circumstances. Furthermore, the provision empowers the court to follow established practices and procedures in respect of a preliminary inquiry under Part XVIII, which covers matters related to the preliminary inquiry process. This means that the court may refer to the procedures outlined in Part XVIII of the Criminal Code when conducting an inquiry, to ensure that there is consistency and uniformity in how inquiries are conducted. The main rationale behind this provision is to ensure that each inquiry is conducted in a manner that is fair, efficient, and fully respects the rights of all parties involved. The provision ensures that the court has the flexibility to adapt to the needs of each case, while also ensuring that there is some degree of established guidelines to ensure consistency and fairness across the board. Overall, Section 672.33(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that grants the court the power to customize the inquiry process according to the needs of each case. It acknowledges that every case is unique and requires customized attention to ensure that justice is served. Moreover, this provision demonstrates that the Canadian legal system is proactive in ensuring that equal justice is given to everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their case.

STRATEGY

Section 672.33(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the court with flexibility in determining the manner in which an inquiry under this section is conducted. This section of the Criminal Code is important because it allows the court to follow the practices and procedures in respect of a preliminary inquiry under Part XVIII, in case the interests of justice require it. However, this flexibility also presents strategic considerations for lawyers, judges, and prosecutors. One of the most significant strategic considerations is the need to balance the interests of justice with the rights and interests of the parties involved in the inquiry. The court must ensure that the inquiry is conducted fairly and impartially, and that the rights of the accused are protected. At the same time, the court must also consider the public interest and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. Another strategic consideration is the choice of the manner of inquiry. The court can choose between different modes of inquiry, such as a hearing in open court, a closed inquiry, or a hybrid approach. The choice of the manner of inquiry will depend on several factors, including the nature of the case, the evidence involved, and the interests of the parties. For example, in cases involving sensitive or confidential information, a closed inquiry may be necessary to protect the privacy and safety of witnesses or other parties involved. Conversely, in cases where transparency and public accountability are important, an open inquiry may be preferred. A third strategic consideration is the use of expert evidence and testimony. In certain cases, expert evidence may be required to assist the court in making a determination on the issues at hand. For example, in cases involving mental health issues or other complex medical conditions, expert testimony may be necessary to assist the court in understanding the evidence and making an informed decision. Expert evidence can be expensive to obtain, however, and the court must balance the costs against the benefits of having such evidence available. Finally, a strategic consideration is the timing and duration of the inquiry. The court must ensure that the inquiry is conducted in a timely and efficient manner, while also allowing the parties sufficient time to prepare and present their case. Delays can be costly and can erode public confidence in the administration of justice. However, rushing an inquiry can also be detrimental to the interests of justice and can lead to unfair or incomplete decisions. The court must strike a balance between speed and accuracy in its determination of the manner of inquiry. In terms of strategies that could be employed when dealing with Section 672.33(5), lawyers, judges, and prosecutors must consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Some strategies that could be employed include: - Conducting a thorough analysis of the issues and evidence involved in the case to determine the most appropriate manner of inquiry - Engaging in pre-inquiry negotiations and discussions to identify areas of agreement and narrow the issues in dispute - Coordinating with experts and witnesses to ensure their availability and suitability for the inquiry - Making strategic objections and arguments during the inquiry to challenge the admissibility or weight of evidence, or to highlight weaknesses in the opposing party's case - Requesting adjournments or other procedural orders to address unforeseen developments or issues that arise during the inquiry - Maintaining a clear and professional demeanor throughout the inquiry to build credibility and trust with the court and other parties involved. Overall, the strategic considerations when dealing with Section 672.33(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada are complex and multifaceted. The court must balance the interests of justice with the rights and interests of the parties involved, while also considering the public interest and the need for transparency and accountability. Lawyers, judges, and prosecutors must be prepared to employ a range of strategies to ensure a fair and just outcome, while also managing the costs and complexities of the inquiry process.