INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
The same authority is given to the lower court to enforce a decision that has been affirmed or modified by the appeal court.
SECTION WORDING
835(1) Where the appeal court renders its decision on an appeal, the summary conviction court from which the appeal was taken or a justice exercising the same jurisdiction has the same authority to enforce a conviction, order or determination that has been affirmed, modified or made by the appeal court as the summary conviction court would have had if no appeal had been taken.
EXPLANATION
Section 835(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the enforcement of convictions, orders, and determinations rendered by an appeal court. It stipulates that once the appeal court makes its decision on an appeal, the lower summary conviction court or a justice exercising the same jurisdiction will have the same authority to enforce a conviction, order, or determination as it would have had had no appeal been taken. This provision serves two purposes. First, it ensures that the lower court or the justice exercising jurisdiction can enforce the decision made by the appeal court. This means that the higher court's ruling is not merely a recommendation but has legal weight and can be implemented by the lower court or justice. Second, it prevents the appeal process from becoming an impediment to justice by making sure that the process does not delay or hinder the enforcement of a conviction, order, or determination. Overall, section 835(1) plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the Canadian criminal justice system by ensuring that decisions made by higher courts are implemented effectively and efficiently. Its provisions enable the justice system to function effectively, ensuring that convictions, orders, and determinations are enforced without undue delay or obstruction.
COMMENTARY
Section 835(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the authority of the summary conviction court or a justice exercising the same jurisdiction to enforce a conviction, order or determination that has been affirmed, modified or made by the appeal court. This provision is essential to ensure that the decisions of the appeal court are implemented and respected in the lower courts and that there is consistency in the enforcement of criminal law across Canada. The purpose of an appeal is to provide an opportunity to review a decision made by a lower court in light of the law and the evidence presented. The appeal court can affirm the decision of the lower court, modify it or make a new determination. Once the appeal court has rendered its decision, it is important that the same authority of the lower court to enforce the conviction, order or determination is maintained. This ensures that the appellate decision is given effect and that justice is served. If the authority of the lower court was not maintained, the decisions of the appeal court would be rendered meaningless, and there would be confusion and inconsistency in the implementation of criminal law. In such a scenario, the parties involved in the case would be forced to appeal again to ensure that the decisions of the appeal court are implemented. Moreover, the maintenance of authority of the lower court is essential in ensuring the efficiency and swift implementation of criminal law decisions. The summary conviction courts handle a significant number of cases, and the timely implementation of decisions is critical to the administration of justice. If the appeal court decisions were not given effect in the lower courts, it would create a backlog of unresolved cases and delay justice. Overall, Section 835(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays an essential role in ensuring the efficient administration of justice. It ensures that the decisions of the appeal court are implemented and respected in the lower courts and that there is consistency in the enforcement of criminal law across Canada. The provision ensures that justice is swift and efficient and that the appellate decisions are given effect. Therefore, it is vital that every effort is made to maintain the authority of the lower court while implementing the decisions of the appeal court.
STRATEGY
Section 835(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada has significant implications for both prosecutors and defense counsel when dealing with summary conviction appeals. The section states that once an appeal court has rendered its decision on a particular case, the summary conviction court or a justice of the same jurisdiction has the same authority to enforce the conviction, order, or determination that has been affirmed or modified by the appeal court as it would have had if no appeal had been taken. This provision of the Criminal Code has important strategic implications for both parties in a criminal trial. For example, defense counsel who appeal a summary conviction order and receive a favorable decision in an appellate court may consider trying to block enforcement of the original conviction by the same summary conviction court or judge that issued it. They may argue that the original decision is now invalidated or modified and, therefore, should not be enforced. Procedurally, such a challenge would follow the same process as any other attempt to challenge a decision of a court, namely by filing a motion or application before the same court, this time requesting that no enforcement action be carried out. On the other hand, it remains important for crown prosecutors to take into account these provisions when determining whether to proceed with an appeal. Specifically, they have to weigh the potential impact of such an appeal and assess whether or not it is worth the risk of having a modified sentence or a new trial as a result as the original judge could still retain jurisdiction over the case. One strategy that the defense counsel could employ is to challenge the validity of the original conviction before the summary conviction court or a justice of the same jurisdiction. Defendants often claim that new evidence had arisen since the trial, or that they were not properly represented at the original hearing. They can also argue there were issues with the trial judge, such as the judge being biased, incompetent, or failing to follow correct procedures. Another strategy is for defense counsel to argue procedural issues in the lower court, while still preserving the right to appeal to a higher court. This may involve arguing that the original decision was flawed due to errors in the trial process or material irregularities or weaknesses in the evidence presented against the defendant. In contrast, one potential strategy that prosecutors could employ would be to ensure that any conviction or order that they wish to seek enforcement for meets all the legal requirements, including proper process and completeness of evidence. In other words, prosecutors may seek to prepare for the possibility of a defendant appealing, ensuring that they have a solid case that can withstand scrutiny from an appellate court should it be needed. In summary, section 835(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada has important implications for both prosecutors and defense counsel in cases where a summary conviction appeal has been filed. Receiving a favorable appellate decision in such cases can provide advantages for the defense. However, it is important for both parties to carefully weigh the risks and benefits involved and to consider the likely outcome of any appeal before deciding how to proceed. Ultimately, the strategies chosen will depend on the circumstances of each individual case and the likely outcomes if appeal proceedings are initiated.