section 555.1(4)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

If a defendant elects to be tried without a jury and does not request a preliminary inquiry, the judge will endorse the election and proceed with the trial.

SECTION WORDING

555.1(4) If an accused is put to an election under subsection (2) and elects to be tried by a judge without a jury and does not request a preliminary inquiry under subsection 536.1(3), the judge shall endorse on the information a record of the election and continue with the trial.

EXPLANATION

Section 555.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the process an accused person must follow if they elect to be tried by a judge without a jury and do not request a preliminary inquiry under subsection 536.1(3). When an accused is charged with a criminal offense, they have the option to choose how they wish to be tried - by a judge alone or a judge and jury. This is known as an election. If an accused elects to be tried by a judge without a jury and does not request a preliminary inquiry, the judge will endorse on the information a record of the election. This means that the information (the formal charge against the accused) will be updated to include a notation of the accused's choice to be tried without a jury. This notation is important because it ensures that the accused's choice is documented and recognized in the legal process. Once the information has been updated, the judge will continue with the trial. The judge will make a determination of guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented during the trial, and will also determine the appropriate sentence if the accused is found guilty. It is important to note that even though the accused has chosen to be tried by a judge without a jury, they are still entitled to all the same legal rights and protections afforded to them under the law. Overall, section 555.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the process that an accused person must follow if they elect to be tried by a judge without a jury and do not request a preliminary inquiry. This section is designed to ensure that the legal process is fair and transparent for everyone involved, and that the accused person's choice is properly documented and recognized by the court.

COMMENTARY

Section 555.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the procedure that must be followed when an accused is put to an election to be tried by a judge without a jury. This provision is significant as it ensures that criminal trials are conducted in a fair and efficient manner. It is important to examine this section in detail to understand its implications. According to this provision, an accused has the right to elect to be tried by a judge without a jury. This election must be made after the accused has been put to an election under subsection (2) of section 555.1. It is important to note that this right to elect is not absolute, and an accused may not elect to be tried by a judge without a jury if the offence they are charged with carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for 5 years or more. Once an accused has elected to be tried by a judge without a jury, they have the option to request a preliminary inquiry under subsection 536.1(3) of the Criminal Code. However, if the accused does not request a preliminary inquiry, the judge must endorse on the information a record of the accused's election to be tried by a judge without a jury. This record serves as evidence that the accused has waived their right to a jury trial and chosen to be tried by a judge alone. The judge must then proceed with the trial. This provision ensures that the trial can be conducted in an efficient manner, as the court does not need to summon and seat a jury. It also ensures that the accused receives a fair trial, as judges are considered impartial and are trained to apply the law in a non-biased manner. Additionally, this provision helps to promote judicial efficiency by reducing the burden on the court system. Jury trials are typically more time-consuming and costly than trials conducted by a judge alone. By allowing accused individuals to waive their right to a jury trial, the court system can save time and resources. However, some critics argue that allowing accused individuals to waive their right to a jury trial undermines the fundamental principles of justice. Juries are typically seen as a cornerstone of the justice system, as they represent the voice of the community and ensure that verdicts are based on the values and norms of society. By allowing individuals to choose to be tried by a judge alone, some argue that the system is eroding this important democratic principle. In conclusion, section 555.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines an important procedure that must be followed in cases where an accused elects to be tried by a judge without a jury. While some critics may view this as a threat to the fundamental principles of justice, others argue that it promotes judicial efficiency and ensures that accused individuals receive a fair trial. Ultimately, it is up to the courts to determine whether the election to be tried by a judge alone is appropriate in each individual case.

STRATEGY

Section 555.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada stipulates that an accused person has the option to elect to be tried by a judge alone without a jury. This provision provides some strategic considerations that can help the accused and their legal counsel to navigate the criminal justice system and achieve the best possible outcome for the accused. One of the strategic considerations is to assess the strength of the prosecution's case. If the case against the accused appears to be weak, it may be more advantageous to opt for a trial by judge alone as opposed to a jury trial. This is because judges are trained legal professionals who are less likely to be influenced by emotional arguments or evidence that may not be admissible in court. Judges are also less likely to be swayed by the opinions of their peers or the public, reducing the potential for some form of groupthink that may occur in jury trials. Another strategic consideration is the complexity and sensitivity of the case. If the case is particularly complicated or involves sensitive issues, it may be better to choose a judge-alone trial. This is because judges tend to have more experience and expertise in dealing with complex legal issues, and they are also better equipped to handle sensitive evidence such as graphic images or testimony that may be difficult for members of the public to process. Timing is also a strategic consideration in this provision. An accused may elect to be tried by a judge alone without a jury at any time before the start of the preliminary inquiry. Therefore, if the accused and their counsel have made a strategic decision to opt for a judge-alone trial, they must make the election before the preliminary inquiry begins. A preliminary inquiry is not necessary for a judge-alone trial, but it may provide useful information or expose weaknesses in the prosecution's case. Thus, if the accused wishes to access this information, it is important to request a preliminary inquiry before electing for a judge-alone trial. In light of these strategic considerations, there are several possible strategies that the accused and their counsel can employ when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada. One approach is to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of the case in question, evaluating the strength of the prosecution's case, the complexity of the legal issues involved, and the sensitivity of the evidence. This information can then be used to determine whether a judge-alone trial would be the most advantageous choice for the accused. Another strategy is to conduct extensive research on the trial judge assigned to the case. This includes identifying any potential bias or conflicts of interest, evaluating the judge's track record in similar cases, and assessing their general disposition and temperament. This information can help counsel to tailor their case strategy to the judge's likely reactions and preferences, increasing the chances of a favorable outcome for the accused. In conclusion, section 555.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides accused persons with the option to elect for a judge-alone trial. To maximize the potential benefits of this provision, the accused and their counsel must carefully evaluate the strength of the prosecution's case, assess the complexity and sensitivity of the legal issues involved, and carefully consider the timing of their election. By employing effective strategies based on these considerations, the accused can increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome in their case.