INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
A certificate endorsed on a recognizance is evidence of the related default.
SECTION WORDING
770(3) A certificate that has been endorsed on a recognizance pursuant to subsection (1) is evidence of the default to which it relates.
EXPLANATION
Section 770(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves an important evidentiary function in the context of recognizances. Recognizances are agreements that are entered into between an accused person and a court, whereby the accused person promises to adhere to certain conditions in exchange for release from custody. These conditions may include requirements such as regularly reporting to a police station, staying away from certain people or locations, or refraining from certain activities. If an accused person breaches any of the conditions of their recognizance, they may be found in default. In such cases, the Crown may apply to the court for forfeiture of the accused person's bail, and the court may issue a certificate endorsing the default on the recognizance. This certificate may then be used as evidence of the default, making it easier for the Crown to prove that the accused person has breached their recognizance. Section 770(3) essentially codifies this evidentiary rule, stating that a certificate that has been endorsed on a recognizance pursuant to subsection (1) is evidence of the default to which it relates. This means that when the Crown seeks to rely on the certificate to prove a breach of recognizance, they will not need to call additional evidence to prove the breach. Instead, the certificate itself will serve as conclusive evidence of the default, making it easier for the Crown to secure a forfeiture of the bail. In summary, section 770(3) plays an important role in the enforcement of recognizances by making it easier for the Crown to prove that an accused person has breached their conditions. This serves to promote accountability and compliance with court orders, and helps to ensure public safety by keeping potentially dangerous individuals off the streets.
COMMENTARY
Section 770(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the endorsement of a certificate on a recognizance and the evidentiary value of such an endorsement as proof of default. This section relates to the legal process whereby an accused person is released on bail and is required to sign a recognizance promising to appear in court on a later date as per the conditions of their release. The endorsement on this recognizance signifies that the accused has failed to comply with one or more conditions, leading to a breach of their recognizance. The purpose of this section is to provide a means of proof of default by the accused when they do not comply with the conditions of their release. The certificate that is endorsed on a recognizance pursuant to subsection (1) serves as evidence of the accused person's default and can be used in court as proof of the breach. The section provides a straightforward and efficient mechanism for the Crown to prove that the accused has breached the conditions of their recognizance, without having to bring witnesses to testify to the breach in court. This is particularly important as it reduces the burden on the court system and also ensures that justice is served without undue delay. The evidentiary value of an endorsed certificate is also important because it ensures that the accused person cannot deny their default. If the accused disputes the breach of their recognizance, the Crown can rely on the certificate endorsed on the recognizance as evidence of the default. This is critical because without such evidence, it would be difficult to prove that the accused has failed to comply with their conditions of release. The section, therefore, ensures that the accused person is held accountable for their actions and cannot avoid the consequences of their breach. Furthermore, Section 770(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada also provides certainty and clarity in the legal process for all parties involved. When an accused person is released on bail and signs a recognizance, they are aware of the conditions of their release and what is expected of them. Therefore, if they breach any conditions, they know that the certificate endorsed on their recognizance can be used as proof against them. This provides clarity in the legal process, and ensures that the accused person understands the consequences of failing to comply with their conditions of release. In conclusion, Section 770(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that enhances the legal process by providing a means of proof of default by an accused person who has failed to comply with their conditions of release. The endorsement of a certificate on a recognizance serves as evidence of the default, which can be relied upon in court by the Crown. This section ensures that the accused person is held accountable for their actions and can be used to end disputes regarding the breach of recognizance. It is a vital provision that promotes justice, clarity, and certainty in the legal process.
STRATEGY
Section 770(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a powerful tool for prosecutors in enforcing the terms of a recognizance. Essentially, it allows the prosecution to use the endorsment on a recognizance as evidence of a default, without having to prove the underlying breach of the conditions of the recognizance. This can be a highly effective strategy for prosecutors, but there are also important strategic considerations when dealing with this provision. One key strategic consideration is the decision about when to seek an endorsement on a recognizance. Because an endorsement can be used as evidence of a default, it is important to only seek an endorsement when there is a strong likelihood that the defendant will actually breach the terms of the recognizance. If an endorsement is sought too early, it may not have the intended effect of deterring the defendant from breaching the recognizance. On the other hand, if an endorsement is sought too late, it may be too late to prevent a breach and the prosecution may have to resort to other tactics to enforce the terms of the recognizance. Another strategic consideration is the decision about how aggressively to pursue a breach of a recognizance. While section 770(3) provides a powerful tool for enforcing a recognizance, it is important to consider the potential costs of pursuing a breach. For example, if the breach is minor and the defendant is otherwise complying with the terms of the recognizance, it may be preferable to seek a less aggressive remedy than revoking the recognizance altogether. This may involve seeking an amendment to the terms of the recognizance, or simply warning the defendant about the consequences of a further breach. One effective strategy that can be employed when dealing with section 770(3) is to use the threat of an endorsement to deter defendants from breaching their recognizance in the first place. This can be particularly effective if the defendant is aware of the potential consequences of an endorsement, and if the prosecution is seen as being willing to follow through on its threats. By effectively communicating the potential consequences of a breach, the prosecution can help to ensure that defendants take their obligations under their recognizance seriously. In summary, section 770(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides prosecutors with a powerful tool for enforcing recognizances. However, it is important to use this provision strategically, and to carefully consider the potential costs and benefits of pursuing a breach. By employing effective strategies, prosecutors can help to ensure that recognizances are taken seriously by defendants, and that breaches are dealt with appropriately.