section 715(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Evidence from a preliminary inquiry or investigation can be used in the prosecution of the accused for any other offence.

SECTION WORDING

715(2) Evidence that has been taken on the preliminary inquiry or other investigation of a charge against an accused may be admitted as evidence in the prosecution of the accused for any other offence on the same proof and in the same manner in all respects, as it might, according to law, be admitted as evidence in the prosecution of the offence with which the accused was charged when the evidence was taken.

EXPLANATION

Section 715(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the admissibility of evidence collected during a preliminary inquiry or other investigation of a charge against an accused. According to this section, such evidence can be used in the prosecution of the accused for any other offence, provided that it is relevant and admissible. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that evidence obtained during the preliminary inquiry or other investigation is not wasted, but rather, can be used to prosecute the accused for other offences that may have come to light during the course of the investigation. This avoids the need for further time-consuming and costly investigations, and helps to ensure that justice is served efficiently. It is important to note, however, that the evidence must meet the same standards of admissibility as it would in the prosecution of the original offence. This means that the evidence must be relevant, reliable, and not unfairly prejudicial to the accused. If the evidence does not meet these standards, it may not be admissible in court. In practice, section 715(2) is often used in cases where the accused has been charged with multiple offences stemming from the same incident or series of events. By allowing evidence from the preliminary inquiry or investigation to be used in the prosecution of all these offences, the legal system is able to save time and resources while still ensuring that the accused is held accountable for their actions. Overall, section 715(2) is an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that helps to facilitate the fair and efficient administration of justice.

COMMENTARY

The criminal justice system has strict rules regarding the admissibility of evidence during trial. One of the most interesting provisions regarding this subject is 715(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, which allows evidence taken during a preliminary inquiry or other investigation of a charge against an accused to be admitted as evidence in the prosecution of the accused for any other offense. This means that the evidence collected in a preliminary inquiry or investigation can be used in a separate trial for a different offense. The idea behind this provision is to avoid the waste of time, resources, and effort by avoiding the repetition of evidence-collection. For example, in cases where there is overwhelming evidence against an accused person in one case, but the evidence was inadmissible for some reason, this provision allows the prosecution to use that same evidence for another case involving the same accused. This eliminates the need for a new round of evidence-gathering, which saves time and resources. However, the provision raises some significant concerns, particularly in terms of the accused's right to a fair trial. It is important to note that when evidence is introduced in a trial, the accused has the option to challenge the authenticity and admissibility of that evidence. However, when evidence from a previous trial is used in a current trial, the accused may not have the opportunity to challenge the evidence's admissibility. This could potentially put the accused at a disadvantage and may violate the principle of fairness in Canadian justice. Additionally, the provision raises concerns about the use of double jeopardy. Under Canadian law, double jeopardy is prohibited, which means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense. However, the use of evidence from the previous trial in a new trial could lead to a situation where the accused is essentially being tried twice for the same offense. This could run contrary to the principles of Canadian law and could be seen as a violation of the protection against double jeopardy. Despite these concerns, the provision has been used in a number of criminal cases in Canada. For example, in 2010, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the use of evidence from a previous trial in a new trial. In that case, the accused was facing charges of assault and threatening bodily harm. Evidence from a previous trial in which the accused faced charges of criminal harassment was used in the current trial. The court found that the use of the evidence was permissible under section 715(2) of the Criminal Code because the evidence had been taken during the initial investigation. Overall, section 715(2) of the Criminal Code allows evidence from a previous trial or investigation to be used in a new trial. While this provision can be useful in some cases, it also raises some significant concerns about the accused's right to a fair trial and the protection against double jeopardy. As such, courts must take great care when considering the admissibility of evidence under this provision to ensure that the accused's rights are protected, and that the judgment is fair and impartial.

STRATEGY

Section 715(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the Crown with a powerful tool in prosecuting accused offenders. This section permits the admission of evidence that was gathered during the preliminary inquiry or other investigations into charges against an accused in the prosecution of that same individual for any other offense. Given this tool, there are several strategic considerations that must be taken into account for both the Crown and the defense counsel. One of the most significant strategic considerations for the Crown is the potential admissibility of evidence. While the Crown is allowed to use evidence gathered during a preliminary hearing or other investigations, the admissibility of the evidence must still meet the standard of relevance, reliability, and fairness. The Crown must prove that the evidence is relevant to the case at hand, accurate, and not biased or prejudiced. Additionally, the Crown must show that the evidence meets the legal requirements for admissibility. Failure to comply with legal requirements could result in the evidence being deemed inadmissible, opening up an avenue for the defense to argue for its exclusion. Another strategic consideration for the Crown is the potential impact of introducing evidence from a preliminary inquiry or other investigation. Evidence from a preliminary hearing or other investigation may be damaging to the accused, and if it is admitted, it could be used to bolster the case against the accused. However, if the evidence in question is a weak link in the prosecution's case and it draws too much attention to flaws in the investigation process, it could ultimately harm the prosecution's case. Therefore, the Crown must carefully weigh the potential risks and benefits of introducing such evidence. For the defense counsel, strategic considerations regarding section 715(2) are focused on scrutinizing the basis for charging the accused with the second offense. The defense counsel may launch a Charter challenge at this point, arguing a possible abuse of process. For instance, charge-stacking is a technique often employed by the Crown to ensure a conviction, which contravenes section 7 of the Charter, and may be argued as being an abuse of process. Additionally, the defense may argue for the exclusion of the preliminary inquiry or other investigation evidence based on its admissibility. Defense counsel must be proficient at identifying flaws or lacunas in the investigation process, for the basis of any challenge to such evidence. The defense may also work to weaken the Crown's case by discrediting the admissibility of the evidence so that it cannot be used to bolster the prosecution's case. In conclusion, section 715(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a powerful tool for the Crown to bolster its case against accused individuals. However, this section also carries significant implications for the admissibility of evidence. As such, both the defense counsel and the Crown must carefully consider how to introduce, and/or counter the evidence obtained during the preliminary inquiry or other investigation. Whether this entails weighing the risks and benefits of introducing such evidence, attacking the admissibility of the evidence as per the legal requirements of the court, or launching a Charter challenge if appropriate, the defence counsel must work strategically to weaken the prosecution's case if possible. Whereas the prosecution must be strategic in using the evidence so that it does not harm or weaken their case. The stakes are high in criminal cases, and both the defence and Crown lawyers must be meticulous and strategic to present their cases to the jury effectively.