INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section states that if an accused is to be tried after an indictment has been preferred, they are deemed to have elected to be tried by a judge and jury and cannot request a preliminary inquiry.
SECTION WORDING
565(2) If an accused is to be tried after an indictment has been preferred against the accused pursuant to a consent or order given under section 577, the accused is, for the purposes of the provisions of this Part relating to election and re-election, deemed both to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury and not to have requested a preliminary inquiry under subsection 536(4) or 536.1(3) and may re-elect to be tried by a judge without a jury without a preliminary inquiry.
EXPLANATION
Section 565(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that relates to the election and re-election processes for criminal trials. Essentially, this section outlines what happens in the event that an accused person is to be tried after an indictment has been made against them following a consent or order given under section 577. Under this section, the accused person is deemed to have elected to be tried by both a judge and jury, and is also deemed not to have requested a preliminary inquiry under subsections 536(4) or 536.1(3). This means that the accused person cannot elect to be tried by a judge alone with a preliminary inquiry. However, the accused person may still re-elect to be tried by a judge without a jury without the need for a preliminary inquiry. This means that the accused person has the option to change their mind regarding whether they want to be tried by a judge and jury or a judge alone, but they cannot request a preliminary inquiry if they have already been indicted under this section. Overall, section 565(2) is an important provision that helps to clarify the rules governing elections and re-elections for criminal trials in Canada. It ensures that accused persons have some flexibility in their trial options, while also promoting efficiency and consistency in the criminal justice system.
COMMENTARY
Section 565(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a significant role in the criminal justice system of Canada. This section deals with the rights of an accused person after an indictment has been preferred against them. It is the right of an accused person to elect how they want to be tried, and this section provides guidance on how to proceed with an election. An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. Once an indictment has been preferred against an accused person, they have to be tried before the court of law. However, the method of trial can vary depending on the election made by the accused. Section 565(2) deals with the election process, which is an important aspect of the criminal justice system. According to Section 565(2), an accused person who is to be tried after an indictment has been preferred against them pursuant to a consent or order given under section 577 is deemed both to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury and not to have requested a preliminary inquiry. In other words, an accused person who has already been indicted will be tried by a judge and a jury, unless the accused person elects to be tried by a judge without a jury without a preliminary inquiry. This section highlights the importance of the election process in the criminal justice system. It also ensures that the accused person is aware of their rights and obligations during the trial. The accused person is able to decide how they want to be tried, which can have significant implications on the outcome of their trial. Therefore, it is important for the accused person to understand the implications of their election. One of the significant benefits of this section is that it allows the accused person to choose the method of trial that suits their interests. Trial by a judge and jury is considered to be impartial and objective. However, some accused persons may prefer to be tried by a judge without a jury, as it may provide more flexibility and may be less cumbersome compared to a trial by a judge and jury. Furthermore, this section also limits the accused person's right to a preliminary inquiry. A preliminary inquiry is a hearing in which the Crown presents evidence to determine whether there is enough evidence to support a criminal charge. The accused person has the right to request a preliminary inquiry. However, according to Section 565(2), an accused person who has already been indicted cannot request a preliminary inquiry. This limits the accused person's ability to challenge the Crown's case at an earlier stage. In conclusion, Section 565(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an essential part of the criminal justice system. This section provides guidance on how to proceed with the election process after an indictment has been preferred against an accused person. The accused person has the right to elect how they want to be tried, but this section also limits their right to a preliminary inquiry. This section ensures that the accused person is aware of their rights and obligations during the trial and that the trial takes place in a fair and just manner.
STRATEGY
Section 565(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada can have significant implications for criminal defense lawyers in terms of the considerations and strategies that they need to adopt in order to represent their clients effectively. This provision states that if an accused is to be tried after an indictment has been preferred against them pursuant to a consent or order given under section 577, they are deemed to have elected to be tried by a judge and jury, and not to have requested a preliminary inquiry under subsections 536(4) or 536.1(3). However, they may re-elect to be tried by a judge without a jury without a preliminary inquiry. One of the key strategic considerations is the decision to elect for a trial by judge alone or by a judge and jury. This decision would largely depend on the particular circumstances of the case and the defendant's individual circumstances. It could be beneficial to opt for a trial by judge alone if the evidence against the accused is weak or if there is a risk that the accused may not receive a fair trial due to the nature of the offence, potential bias, or other factors. On the other hand, if the accused is confident of their innocence and has a strong defense, a trial by jury may be preferred in order to potentially sway the opinions of the jurors. Another important strategic consideration is whether a preliminary inquiry should be requested. A preliminary inquiry allows the defense to potentially uncover weaknesses in the Crown's case and gain insight into the evidence that will be presented at trial. However, if the accused is deemed to have waived their right to request a preliminary inquiry under Section 565(2), then the defense would need to carefully evaluate whether it would be necessary or useful to request one in their case. Furthermore, the strategic considerations of Section 565(2) could also include timing-related factors. For instance, the defense may prefer to delay filing an election in order to assess the strength of the Crown's case, weigh potential plea bargain offers or other settlement options, or to allow for additional evidence-gathering, analysis, and preparation. Overall, the decision to elect for a trial by judge alone or jury and whether or not to request a preliminary inquiry are strategic considerations that need to be thoughtfully weighed by criminal defense lawyers. These decisions will depend on the specific circumstances of each case and should be approached with a deep understanding of the law and how it applies to the case at hand.