section 556(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section allows a trial to proceed in the absence of an accused organization if they do not appear after being summoned.

SECTION WORDING

556(2) Where an accused organization does not appear pursuant to a summons and service of the summons on the organization is proved, the provincial court judge or, in Nunavut, the judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice (a) may, if the charge is one over which the judge has absolute jurisdiction, proceed with the trial of the charge in the absence of the accused organization; and (b) shall, if the charge is not one over which the judge has absolute jurisdiction, fix the date for the trial or the date on which the accused organization must appear in the trial court to have that date fixed.

EXPLANATION

Section 556(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the procedures that are applicable when an accused organization fails to appear in court after being summoned. This section recognizes that organizations, just like individuals, can be charged with criminal offenses. Thus, if an organization has been summonsed to appear in court and does not appear, this section provides guidance on how the court should proceed with the trial of the charge. Under subsection (a) of this section, if the charge is one over which the judge has absolute jurisdiction, the judge may proceed with the trial of the charge in the absence of the accused organization. In this context, absolute jurisdiction" refers to offenses that are minor in nature and carry less severe penalties. In such cases, the judge may proceed with the trial without the presence of the accused organization and render a judgment based on the evidence presented before the court. Under subsection (b), if the charge is not one over which the judge has absolute jurisdiction, the judge must fix a date for the trial or the date on which the accused organization must appear in court to have that date fixed. This subsection recognizes that in some cases, the charges may be more serious and carry severe penalties. As such, the court must provide the accused organization with an opportunity to appear in court and defend itself against the charges. This section, therefore, provides a framework for dealing with organizations that fail to appear in court when summoned. By outlining the procedures that the court must follow, this section ensures that accused organizations are given the opportunity to defend themselves against the charges brought against them.

COMMENTARY

Section 556(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the procedure to be followed in case an accused organization fails to appear before the court after being summoned. This section provides the court with the discretion to proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused organization, provided that the charge is one over which the judge has absolute jurisdiction. If the charge is not one over which the judge has absolute jurisdiction, the court must fix a date for the trial or the date on which the accused organization must appear in the trial court to have that date fixed. This provision is intended to ensure that the trial of an accused organization is not delayed unduly due to the non-appearance of the organization. It recognizes the fact that organizations are artificial entities that operate under the guise of legal personality. While such entities do not have a physical presence, they do have legal obligations, including the obligation to attend court when summoned. The provisions of this section are similar to those that apply in the case of an accused individual who fails to appear before the court. In such cases, the court has a discretionary power to proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused, provided that certain conditions are met. These conditions include the requirement that the accused has been properly served with a summons and that the charge is one over which the judge has jurisdiction to try in the absence of the accused. The provisions of this section are particularly relevant in the case of organizations that commit offenses that are difficult to detect and prosecute, such as white-collar crimes. These crimes often involve sophisticated schemes that operate across multiple jurisdictions and involve complex financial transactions. As a result, investigating and prosecuting such crimes can be difficult and time-consuming. The provisions of this section are also relevant in cases where an accused organization has deliberately chosen to avoid prosecution by failing to appear before the court. This may occur, for example, where an organization is aware that it has committed an offense, but believes that it can avoid conviction by delaying the proceedings or by avoiding service of the summons. The provisions of this section provide the court with the discretion to proceed with the trial in such cases, thereby ensuring that justice is not delayed or denied. In conclusion, Section 556(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that recognizes the legal obligations of organizations to attend court when summoned. It ensures that the trial of an accused organization is not delayed unduly due to the non-appearance of the organization. This provision is particularly relevant in cases involving white-collar crimes and other offenses that are difficult to detect and prosecute. It provides the court with the discretion to proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused organization, thereby ensuring that justice is not delayed or denied.

STRATEGY

Section 556(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada poses significant strategic considerations for both the prosecution and defense when it comes to dealing with accused organizations that fail to appear in court. It is important to understand that organizations, as legal entities, are treated differently from individual accused persons in the Canadian criminal justice system. This means that different strategic considerations may come into play when dealing with an accused organization under section 556(2). One of the key strategic considerations when dealing with section 556(2) is the decision of whether or not to proceed with a trial in the absence of the accused organization. This decision may be influenced by a number of factors, such as the nature and seriousness of the charges, the strength and quality of the evidence, and the likelihood of obtaining a conviction. If the prosecutor believes that there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they may choose to proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused organization. However, doing so may also entail certain risks, as the accused organization will not have the opportunity to present its defense and may feel unfairly penalized if convicted in its absence. Another important strategic consideration is the need to balance the interests of justice with the practical realities of prosecuting an accused organization. For example, an organization that is facing criminal charges may be difficult to locate or may have limited financial resources to mount a defense. This can create challenges for both the prosecution and defense in terms of presentation of evidence and ensuring fair treatment of the accused. Careful consideration of these factors may be necessary to ensure that justice is served in a fair and efficient manner. In addition to these considerations, there are a number of strategies that may be employed when dealing with section 556(2). For example, the prosecution may choose to issue a new summons to the accused organization, or may seek to have the charges stayed (i.e. suspended), pending the appearance of the accused organization. Alternatively, the defense may choose to file a motion for dismissal of the charges, arguing that the accused organization's failure to appear was due to factors beyond its control. Overall, the strategic considerations and strategies employed when dealing with section 556(2) will depend on a variety of factors, including the specific circumstances of the case, the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence, and the nature and seriousness of the charges. Effective legal representation and careful consideration of all available options will be critical to ensuring the best possible outcome for all parties involved.