section 551.1(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

An application or appointment for a trial can only be made for indictable offences after the prosecution prefers the indictment.

SECTION WORDING

551.1(3) In the case of a trial for an indictable offence, other than a trial before a provincial court judge, the application or appointment may only be made after the prosecution prefers the indictment.

EXPLANATION

Section 551.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the protocol for the appointment of an amicus curiae, also known as a friend of the court, in the context of a trial for an indictable offence. An amicus curiae is a person who is not a party to a case but can provide insight or expertise on a specific legal issue that will be discussed during the trial. An amicus curiae can also assist the court in informing the proceedings by presenting viewpoints that may not have been considered by the parties involved. In line with the provision, the appointment of an amicus curiae is only permissible in the case of a trial for an indictable offence, and it must occur after the prosecution prefers the indictment. This indicates that the prosecution must initiate the formal legal proceedings for an indictable offence before an amicus curiae can be appointed. This provision applies to all trial stages, beginning with the preliminary hearing through to the final sentencing. Moreover, the provision places restrictions on the appointment of an amicus curiae. The appointment can only be made in an indictable offence trial before a judge other than a provincial court judge. This means that in a trial before a provincial court judge, an amicus curiae cannot be appointed. The provision also mandates that the appointment must be for a specific purpose and duration. The amicus curiae must have a clearly defined role and scope of activities designed to achieve the purpose for which they are appointed. In conclusion, Section 551.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the rules for the appointment of an amicus curiae in the trial for an indictable offence, ensuring that the process is legally sound and transparent. This provision seeks to enhance the administration of justice by permitting an independent assessment of legal issues that arise during a trial, in the interest of justice.

COMMENTARY

Section 551.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important piece of legislation that governs the appointment of a language interpreter in a criminal trial. The provision stipulates that in the case of a trial for an indictable offense, other than a trial before a provincial court judge, the appointment of an interpreter can only be made after the prosecution has preferred an indictment. The provision is significant because it recognizes the importance of the right to interpretation in the criminal justice system. The right to an interpreter is a fundamental right that is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It ensures that an individual who does not speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted can still understand the nature and consequences of the charges against them. By requiring the prosecution to prefer an indictment before the appointment of an interpreter can be made, the provision recognizes that the right to interpretation is tied to the right to a fair trial. An interpreter plays a crucial role in ensuring that a defendant can effectively communicate with their lawyer and understand the evidence presented against them. Without an interpreter, a defendant may not be able to effectively participate in the trial and may be at a significant disadvantage. Section 551.1(3) also ensures that the appointment of an interpreter is made in a timely and efficient manner. By requiring the prosecution to prefer an indictment before the appointment of an interpreter can be made, the provision ensures that the appointment is made at a critical stage in the trial process. This ensures that the defendant has access to interpretation services from the start of the trial and can effectively participate in all aspects of the proceedings. Finally, by limiting the application or appointment of an interpreter to trials for indictable offenses, other than before a provincial court judge, the provision recognizes the different levels of courts in the justice system. It ensures that interpretation services are provided at the appropriate levels of the court system, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In conclusion, Section 551.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that recognizes the fundamental right to interpretation in the criminal justice system. It ensures that the application or appointment of an interpreter is made in a timely and efficient manner and at the appropriate level of court. Ultimately, the provision helps to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their proficiency in the language of the court, receive a fair and just trial.

STRATEGY

Section 551.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada sets out the conditions under which an application or appointment for a judge-alone trial can be made in the case of an indictable offence. Specifically, this provision states that such an application or appointment can only be made once the prosecution has preferred the indictment. This section of the Criminal Code raises a number of strategic considerations for all parties involved in a criminal trial, and there are several strategies that these parties can employ to ensure the best possible outcome for their case. One strategic consideration that the defence must keep in mind when dealing with section 551.1(3) is the timing of their application or appointment. While the provision stipulates that such an application can only be made after the prosecution has preferred the indictment, there is no specific timeline for when this must occur. As such, defence counsel may wish to delay their application until they have a better understanding of the prosecution's case against their client. For example, if the prosecution's case relies heavily on witness testimony, it may be beneficial for the defence to wait until after the testimony has been given to apply for a judge-alone trial. Another strategic consideration for the defence is the level of experience and expertise of the judge who will preside over the trial. Unlike jury trials, judge-alone trials are heard by a single judge, which means that the presiding judge has a significant amount of power in determining the outcome of the trial. Defense counsel may wish to carefully consider the reputation and track record of potential judges before making an application, and may even seek to challenge the appointment of a particular judge if they feel that their client's interests would not be best served by that individual. For the Crown prosecutor, strategic considerations around section 551.1(3) may relate more to their overall case strategy. One key consideration is whether the factual and legal issues involved in the case are such that a judge-alone trial would be advantageous to their prosecution. If the case involves complex questions of law or evidence, a judge-alone trial may be a better choice than a jury trial, as judges are generally assumed to have greater expertise in legal matters than lay jurors. Another strategic consideration for the Crown is the timing of their indictment. Given that section 551.1(3) requires an indictment to be preferred before an application for a judge-alone trial can be made, the prosecution may be able to leverage this timing to their advantage. For example, if the prosecution believes that the defence will be more likely to apply for a judge-alone trial once the indictment has been preferred, they may choose to delay this step in order to gain more time to prepare their case or to reduce the chances of a judge-alone trial being granted. Overall, the strategies employed by defence counsel and the Crown prosecutor when dealing with section 551.1(3) of the Criminal Code will depend on the specific circumstances of the case at hand. Some key factors that may influence these strategies include the complexity of the legal and factual issues involved, the level of experience and expertise of potential judges, and the timing of the indictment and subsequent applications for a judge-alone trial. By carefully considering these and other factors, both the defence and the prosecution can work to give their client the best possible chance for success in the trial.