section 558

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section states that an accused person can choose to be tried by a judge without a jury for certain indictable offenses.

SECTION WORDING

558 If an accused who is charged with an indictable offence, other than an offence mentioned in section 469, elects under section 536 or 536.1 or re-elects under section 561 or 561.1 to be tried by a judge without a jury, the accused shall, subject to this Part, be tried by a judge without a jury.

EXPLANATION

Section 558 of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the right of an accused person who is facing an indictable offense to request a trial without a jury. In essence, this means that if the accused wishes to have their case heard by a judge alone, they are free to do so. The section specifically states that if an accused person elects to be tried by a judge without a jury, they shall be tried in this manner, subject to certain provisions outlined in the Criminal Code. For example, in some cases, the Crown may object to the accused person's election for a judge-only trial, in which case the matter would have to be resolved by a judge. Section 558 applies to all indictable offenses, with the exception of those listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code. Section 469 offenses are the most serious offenses under Canadian law, including murder, treason, and piracy, among others. For these types of offenses, a trial by jury is generally required under Canadian law. The provision for judge-alone trials is significant, as it allows an accused person to avoid having their fate decided by a jury of their peers. Instead, they can have their case heard and decided by a judge, who is typically considered to be more experienced and knowledgeable in matters of law. Overall, Section 558 of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that provides the accused person with the right to elect for a judge-only trial, subject to certain legal restrictions and procedures.

COMMENTARY

Section 558 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows accused individuals to elect to be tried by a judge alone, rather than by a jury. This is an important provision that ensures that the accused is provided with a fair and impartial trial that is based on the facts of the case. The decision to elect or re-elect a judge-alone trial is a significant one, as it removes the possibility of a jury trial, which provides an impartial group of citizens to determine the facts of the case. However, there are situations where it may be preferable for an accused individual to choose a judge-alone trial. For instance, it can be faster, more efficient, and less expensive than a jury trial. In general, the right to a jury trial is an important constitutional principle in Canada and is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, section 558 of the Criminal Code recognizes that there may be circumstances where it is not necessary or desirable to have a jury. The provision is limited to indictable offenses (excluding those mentioned in section 469), which are more serious criminal charges that warrant a higher level of judicial scrutiny. An accused individual may elect or re-elect this option under certain circumstances, such as in cases where the evidence is complex, there is a risk of jury bias, or where the accused is unsure about the outcome of a trial with a jury. While jury trials have advantages in terms of providing a random selection of impartial individuals who can determine the facts of the case, there are also a number of drawbacks to consider. For example, juries may be swayed by emotion, prejudice, or misinformation, which may lead to false verdicts. A trial with only a judge removes this possibility since judges are impartial and unbiased individuals who have years of experience adjudicating cases. Furthermore, in cases where there is a risk of jury bias, such as in high-profile cases, cases involving hate crimes or cases involving accused individuals representing minority or marginalized communities, judges may have better insight into the legal issues and can prevent potential jurors from being unduly influenced. However, electing a judge-alone trial may also mean that the accused individual is not able to benefit from the diversity of views and experiences that a jury trial can provide. For this reason, it is important that the decision to elect a judge-alone trial is made only after careful consideration of the facts of the case. In conclusion, section 558 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides individuals accused of indictable offenses with an option to choose a judge-alone trial. While it can be a more efficient and less expensive option, the choice to elect a judge-alone trial must be made carefully, taking into account the facts of the case and the risk of jury bias. Ultimately, the decision should be based on what is in the best interests of the accused individual and ensures that they receive a fair and impartial trial.

STRATEGY

Section 558 of the Criminal Code of Canada grants an accused person who is charged with an indictable offence the option to elect to be tried by a judge without a jury, subject to certain conditions. The accused person should carefully consider their options and the potential strategic advantages and disadvantages of each option. One of the key considerations when electing to be tried by a judge without a jury is the potential bias of the jury. Juries are made up of a cross-section of the community, which can include people who may be biased against the accused based on their race, religion, or other factors. By opting to be tried by a judge, an accused person may avoid the potential for this type of bias. Another strategic consideration is the level of complexity of the case. In cases involving complex legal or factual issues, it may be advantageous to have a judge who is familiar with the law and can understand and appreciate the nuances of the case. A judge may also be more likely to make decisions based on legal principles rather than emotional factors. The potential for a quicker resolution to the case is also a strategic consideration. Trials with juries can take much longer than trials without juries because of the time required for jury selection, deliberation, and the need to ensure that all members of the jury are available for the duration of the trial. By electing to be tried by a judge without a jury, an accused person may be able to speed up the timeline of the trial and receive a resolution more quickly. On the other hand, an accused person may choose to be tried by a jury for strategic reasons. Juries are typically seen as more sympathetic to the accused than judges, and therefore may be more likely to acquit them of the charges. Additionally, juries can be swayed by emotional appeals or persuasive testimony that may not have as much sway with a judge. In terms of strategies that could be employed, an accused person may want to consult with a criminal defense lawyer to assess their options and develop a strategy that makes the most sense for their particular case. The lawyer can help the accused person decide whether a jury trial or a judge trial is the best option, based on the facts of the case, and advise on how to present the case in the most effective manner. Additionally, the accused person may want to carefully consider the selection of the judge or jury. For example, they may want to avoid a judge who has a reputation for being hard on defendants or a jury composed primarily of people who are not sympathetic to their cause. Ultimately, the decision of whether to elect a judge or a jury trial should be based on careful consideration of the strategic advantages and disadvantages of each option. By carefully weighing their options and developing a sound strategy, an accused person can increase their chances of a successful outcome in their criminal case.