section 672.33(6)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

If there is not enough evidence to put the accused on trial after an inquiry, the court shall acquit the accused.

SECTION WORDING

672.33(6) Where, on the completion of an inquiry under this section, the court is satisfied that sufficient evidence cannot be adduced to put the accused on trial, the court shall acquit the accused.

EXPLANATION

Section 672.33(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the process that the court must follow when conducting an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to put an accused person on trial. The purpose of this section is to ensure that a fair and just legal process is followed and that an accused person is not subjected to a trial without sufficient evidence to support the charges against them. An inquiry under this section may be initiated by either the defence or the prosecution, and it is usually carried out in cases where the evidence against the accused is weak or unreliable. The inquiry is conducted by a judge, who will hear evidence from both sides and determine whether the evidence presented is sufficient to proceed to trial. If, at the end of the inquiry, the judge is satisfied that there is not enough evidence to support the charges against the accused, they must acquit the accused, which would mean that the accused would be released and the charges against them would be dropped. It is important to note that an acquittal does not mean that the accused is innocent, but rather, that the court was not satisfied that there was enough evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, section 672.33(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves to reinforce the fundamental principle in Canadian law that an accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. By requiring the court to acquit an accused person if there is insufficient evidence to proceed to trial, this section ensures that the legal process is fair, just, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

COMMENTARY

Section 672.33(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important aspect of the criminal justice system in Canada. This section outlines the process for inquiries into whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial in cases where the accused has been charged with a criminal offence. The primary purpose of an inquiry under this section is to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to justify proceeding with a trial. In other words, the inquiry seeks to establish whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction based on the evidence available. The inquiry is conducted in front of a judge, and both the Crown and the defence are given the opportunity to make submissions and call witnesses. If, at the end of the inquiry, the court is satisfied that there is not enough evidence to justify proceeding with a trial, the accused will be acquitted. This means that the charges against them are dropped, and they are no longer facing criminal prosecution for that particular offence. The court may also dismiss the charges, meaning that the accused is not acquitted, but the charges are not being pursued at that time. The purpose of this section is to ensure that individuals are not unfairly subject to a criminal trial when there is no realistic prospect of conviction. This is important because a criminal trial can have serious consequences for an accused person, even if they are ultimately found not guilty. The process can be lengthy, costly, and emotionally draining, and can result in damage to an individual's reputation and relationships. Moreover, the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the Canadian criminal justice system. This principle holds that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. By requiring the Crown to establish a realistic prospect of conviction before proceeding with a trial, Section 672.33(6) upholds this principle and ensures that individuals are not unfairly punished for crimes they did not commit. However, it is important to note that an acquittal or dismissal under this section does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent of the offence charged. Rather, it simply means that there was not enough evidence to justify proceeding with a trial. The Crown may still choose to re-charge the accused if additional evidence becomes available. In conclusion, Section 672.33(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves an important function in ensuring that individuals are not unfairly subject to a criminal trial when there is no realistic prospect of conviction. This section upholds the principle of the presumption of innocence, and protects individuals from the serious consequences of a criminal trial. However, it is also important to remember that an acquittal or dismissal does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent of the crime charged.

STRATEGY

Section 672.33(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a significant level of protection for accused individuals. The section stipulates that where sufficient evidence cannot be presented to put the accused on trial following an inquiry, the court is required to acquit the accused. This safeguard is crucial for ensuring justice and fairness in the Canadian criminal justice system. In dealing with this section, there are several strategic considerations that lawyers and defendants should bear in mind, including the strategies that could be employed. The first strategic consideration is the importance of thoroughly assessing the strength of the prosecution's case. The section of the Criminal Code of Canada places the burden of proof on the prosecutor, and they must produce evidence that is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. By conducting a thorough case analysis, lawyers can determine whether the prosecution has sufficient evidence to meet this burden of proof. If they find that the evidence is weak, they can use this as a strategic point to argue that the accused should be acquitted under Section 672.33(6) of the Criminal Code. Another strategic consideration is engaging in pre-trial negotiation with the prosecutor. Instead of proceeding to a formal inquiry, a pre-trial settlement may be reached that would be acceptable to the accused and prosecution. The accused's lawyers can use their understanding of the strength of the evidence against their client to negotiate a deal that is mutually beneficial. For instance, a plea bargain may be entered into, that would necessitate a lesser charge and sentencing in exchange for a guilty plea. This could prevent acquiring enough evidence to put the accused on trial, thus resulting in an acquittal. A third strategy is cross-examining the prosecution witnesses thoroughly during the inquiry. During the pre-trial inquiry, the defense counsel has the opportunity to cross-examine state witnesses. This could be a strategic maneuver for highlighting inconsistencies or weaknesses in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which could work in favor of the defendant. Through this approach, it may be possible to persuade the court that sufficient evidence is not present, and hence call for an acquittal. The fourth strategic consideration is the importance of providing evidence o their defense. It is necessary for an accused individual to take an active role in mounting their defense, by providing evidence to support their defense. The lawyer of the accused can assist in organizing and presenting evidence that supports the accused's innocence in the court inquiry. Providing this additional evidence could work towards the defense's favor in raising the doubt that of guilt, and creating an impression that the prosecution does not have enough evidence to proceed to trial. In conclusion, the strategic considerations and strategies to employ when dealing with Section 672.33(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada rely on a fundamental understanding of the legal processes and trial procedures. Engaging competent legal counsel, thoroughly analyzing the strength of the prosecution's case, engaging in pre-trial negotiations, providing evidence to the defense and raising inconsistencies in the prosecution's case key strategies. All these approaches may be applied concurrently to prepare a compelling defense. The essence is to utilize all the available resources, that may result in an acquittal for the accused.