section 676(6)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The Attorney General may appeal a courts decision not to make an order under subsection 745.51(1).

SECTION WORDING

676(6) The Attorney General or counsel instructed by the Attorney General for the purpose may appeal to the court of appeal against the decision of the court not to make an order under subsection 745.51(1).

EXPLANATION

Section 676(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows the Attorney General or an appointed counsel to appeal to the court of appeal if the decision made by a lower court is not to make an order under subsection 745.51(1). Subsection 745.51(1) is a provision under the Criminal Code related to the sentencing of individuals who have committed murder and are found guilty. The provision stipulates that if an individual is found guilty of first-degree murder, they will be sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. However, for individuals who are found guilty of second-degree murder, the judge has discretion to order a period of ineligibility for parole that is less than 25 years. This is where subsection 745.51(1) comes into play. The section allows the judge to consider mitigating factors, such as the offender's age, character, and the nature of the offense, and order a period of parole ineligibility that is less than 25 years. If the lower court decides not to make an order under subsection 745.51(1), the Attorney General or an appointed counsel has the right to appeal this decision to the court of appeal. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that appropriate sentences are handed down in cases of murder and that the factors that may mitigate a sentence are taken into account. Overall, Section 676(6) ensures that the sentencing of individuals for murder is fair and just, and that the decisions made by lower courts are subject to review if necessary. It also highlights the importance of considering mitigating factors when determining a sentence.

COMMENTARY

Section 676(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the power of the Attorney General to appeal against a decision of the court not to make an order under subsection 745.51(1). This provision allows the Attorney General to challenge a decision of the trial court that refuses to make an order under the controversial section 745.51 of the Criminal Code. Section 745.51 is colloquially known as the "faint hope clause". It provides a mechanism for convicted murderers who have served at least fifteen years of their sentence to apply for a reduction in the parole ineligibility period from 25 years to 15 years. The purpose of this provision is to allow inmates who have demonstrated rehabilitation and remorse to have a chance at earlier release. However, the section is highly contentious, and its constitutionality has been challenged by various groups, including victims' rights groups. The main criticism is that it allows murderers to apply for early parole, which can be distressing for victims' families and may send the wrong message about the severity of the crime. Under subsection 745.51(1), the court has discretion to grant or deny the inmate's application for a reduction in the parole ineligibility period. If the court denies the application, the Attorney General can appeal the decision under section 676(6). The purpose of this provision is to ensure that there is a mechanism to challenge the court's decision if it is believed that it is incorrect or has been made on erroneous grounds. However, it also raises some concerns about the appropriate balance between the judiciary and the executive. Some critics argue that this provision can enable the Attorney General to interfere with the court's decision and undermine the independence of the judiciary. They argue that it can be used to pressure judges to make decisions that are politically popular or to advance the government's agenda. To address these concerns, some have proposed limiting the Attorney General's power to appeal under section 676(6). For example, it has been suggested that the appeal should only be allowed on questions of law or jurisdiction, and not on the merits of the decision. This would ensure that the appeal does not interfere with the court's factual findings or discretion. In conclusion, section 676(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a mechanism for the Attorney General to challenge the court's decision not to make an order under subsection 745.51(1). While this provision is meant to ensure that there is a mechanism for review, it also raises some concerns about the appropriate balance between the judiciary and the executive. It is important that any potential abuse of power is addressed through appropriate limitations to the Attorney General's power to appeal.

STRATEGY

Section 676(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the Attorney General with the right to appeal to the court of appeal against the decision of the court not to make an order under subsection 745.51(1). The section is of great importance as it allows the Attorney General to appeal decisions that may have significant implications for public safety and justice. The decision to appeal a decision under this section requires strategic considerations. One strategic consideration is the timing of the appeal. The Attorney General must carefully evaluate the timing of the appeal to maximize the chances of success. An early appeal could allow the Attorney General to obtain a stay of the original decision, thereby preventing it from being implemented. On the other hand, a late appeal could lead to significant practical impediments to the implementation of the decision. The Attorney General must factor in these considerations and the potential consequences of each timing option before filing an appeal. Another strategic consideration when dealing with this section is the wording of the appeal. The appeal must be carefully worded to ensure that it meets the legal requirements for an appealable decision. The appeal must identify the errors committed by the lower court, the evidence that supports these errors, and how these errors impacted the outcome of the case. The wording should be concise, clear, and persuasive to the appeals court. The credibility of the appellant - the Attorney General - is also an important strategic consideration. The Attorney General's office must maintain a high level of public trust and confidence in its legal decisions. As such, any appeal must be well-founded, and the reasoning behind it must be transparent. Proper communication with stakeholders and the public is essential to achieve this objective. The strength of the evidence is also important in determining whether to initiate an appeal. The Attorney General must carefully analyze the evidence and its strength to determine if the appeal is worth pursuing. Appeals are costly, and if there is insufficient evidence to support the appeal, it risks wasting resources and undermining the credibility of the Attorney General's office. In conclusion, Section 676(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the Attorney General with the right to appeal decisions not to make orders under subsection 745.51(1). This section presents numerous strategic considerations, including timing, the wording of the appeal, the credibility of the appellant, and the strength of the evidence. The Attorney General must conduct a careful analysis of these factors before pursuing an appeal to maximize success and avoid negative consequences.