INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
A certificate specifying a proceeding in which evidence was given is evidence that it was given in a judicial proceeding.
SECTION WORDING
136(2.1) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, a certificate specifying with reasonable particularity the proceeding in which that person is alleged to have given the evidence in respect of which the offence is charged, is evidence that it was given in a judicial proceeding, without proof of the signature or official character of the person by whom the certificate purports to be signed if it purports to be signed by the clerk of the court or other official having the custody of the record of that proceeding or by his lawful deputy.
EXPLANATION
Section 136(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves as a valuable tool in criminal proceedings by allowing for the admissibility of evidence given in judicial proceedings as evidence in a criminal case. Specifically, this section creates a presumption that evidence given in a judicial proceeding was given in a proper manner, without requiring additional evidence to prove the signature or official character of the person providing the evidence. This presumption is established through the use of a certificate that specifies the particulars of the proceeding in which the evidence was given. The certificate can be signed by the clerk of the court or other official who has custody of the record of the proceeding, or by their lawful deputy. In practice, this section is typically utilized in cases where an individual is charged with an offence under section 136 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the offence of perjury. Perjury is the act of providing false testimony under oath or affirmation in a judicial proceeding, with the intention of misleading the court. Section 136(2.1) allows prosecutors to rely on evidence given in a prior judicial proceeding as proof that the accused gave false testimony. This is important because it allows the prosecution to establish that the accused intended to mislead the court, without the need for additional evidence of their state of mind. Overall, section 136(2.1) helps to streamline criminal proceedings by allowing for the admissibility of evidence given in judicial proceedings without requiring unnecessary additional evidence. This can save time and resources for both the prosecution and defence, while still ensuring that the justice system operates fairly and efficiently.
COMMENTARY
Section 136(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves a vital purpose in the Canadian legal system. The purpose of this section is to provide that a certificate specifying with reasonable particularity the proceeding in which the accused is alleged to have given the evidence in respect of which the offence is charged, is evidence that it was given in a judicial proceeding, without proof of the signature or official character of the person by whom the certificate purports to be signed if it purports to be signed by the clerk of the court or other official having the custody of the record of that proceeding or by his lawful deputy. The significance of this section is that the certificate serves as reliable evidence without the necessity of the court hearing oral testimony from the person who gave the evidence. The certificate serves as a shortcut, which saves time and resources that would have been utilized if the court had to hear testimony from the person who gave the evidence. One reason for the existence of this section is to combat witness intimidation. This section shields witnesses from threat or intimidation, thereby ensuring that they feel comfortable and secure to testify in court without fearing for their lives. It is common knowledge that witnesses are often intimidated or threatened so that they don't appear in court to testify. This section helps to prevent this from happening, in a sense, indirectly. If the witness is threatened or intimidated to the extent that they cannot attend court to testify, then the prosecution may rely on the certificate of the proceeding in which the evidence was given to prove its case. The certificate is expected to specify the proceeding with reasonable particularity. The meaning of this phrase is that the certificate should be specific and not generic. It should not be vague in any way. It should provide adequate information about the proceeding in which the evidence was given, so that the court can identify the person who gave the evidence and the circumstances in which the evidence was given. If the certificate is not specific enough, the court may not admit it into evidence, thereby preventing the prosecution from using it to prove its case. Another important aspect of this section is the fact that the certificate of the record is admissible without proof of the signature or official character of the person who signed the certificate. This means that the certificate can be used as evidence without the prosecution having to prove that the person who signed the certificate has the authority or official character to do so. This is significant because it saves time and resources which could have been used to prove the signature or official character of the person who signed the certificate. In conclusion, Section 136(2.1) is a vital part of the Criminal Code of Canada. It serves an important function in ensuring that the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This section helps to ensure that witnesses are protected against intimidation, which would otherwise leave the prosecution with no option but to rely on the certificate of the record. This section also saves time and resources and allows for a more efficient legal system.
STRATEGY
Section 136(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays an important role in the Canadian legal system. It provides a mechanism for prosecuting individuals who commit perjury, or give false evidence, in judicial proceedings. However, this section can also carry significant consequences for individuals who are wrongly accused of perjury, particularly if the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to support their case. Strategic considerations when dealing with Section 136(2.1) include understanding the requirements of the section, evaluating the strength of the evidence against the accused, and developing a strong defense strategy to combat the allegations. One key strategy that could be employed is to challenge the validity of the certificate itself. In order to be admissible as evidence under Section 136(2.1), the certificate must meet certain requirements, including specifying the proceeding in which the alleged perjury occurred and being signed by a clerk of the court or other official with lawful custody of the record. If the certificate does not meet these requirements, it may not be admissible as evidence. Another strategy is to attack the credibility of the witness who has accused the accused of perjury. In many cases, the credibility of the accuser may be called into question, particularly if they have a history of lying or have a motive to falsely accuse the accused of perjury. This strategy may involve conducting extensive background checks and reviewing any relevant documentation or testimony from previous trials. A third strategy is to carefully evaluate the evidence against the accused and prepare a strong defense. This may involve gathering witness statements, reviewing any relevant physical or documentary evidence, and consulting with experts in relevant fields. It may also involve developing alternative narratives or explanations for the evidence, in order to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. In conclusion, Section 136(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important tool for combating perjury in the Canadian legal system. However, it is also a mechanism that can carry significant consequences for individuals who are wrongly accused of perjury. By understanding the requirements of the section and developing strong defense strategies, individuals can help to protect their rights and ensure that they receive a fair trial.