section 591(6)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section allows for a separate trial for counts related to an order made in respect of the accused or defendant.

SECTION WORDING

591(6) Where an order is made in respect of an accused or defendant under paragraph (3)(b), the accused or defendant may be tried separately on the counts in relation to which the order was made as if they were contained in a separate indictment.

EXPLANATION

Section 591(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows for the possibility of a separate trial for an accused or defendant who is subject to an order under paragraph (3)(b). Paragraph (3)(b) allows a judge to order that certain counts within an indictment be tried separately if a joint trial would prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial. This means that if a judge grants such an order, the accused can be tried separately for the counts listed in the order as if they were contained in a separate indictment. This is important because in a joint trial, evidence and testimony related to one count may inadvertently spill over and affect the accused's fair trial rights for another count. By allowing a separate trial for these specific counts, the accused's fair trial rights are protected, and the trial can proceed in a more just manner. Additionally, the separate trial may expedite the legal proceedings, as the counts subject to the order can be dealt with before the remaining counts in the indictment. Overall, Section 591(6) helps ensure that an accused's right to a fair trial is protected in situations where a joint trial may cause prejudice. It provides an avenue for a more efficient and just legal proceeding.

COMMENTARY

Section 591(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides for the circumstances under which an accused or defendant may be tried separately on counts in relation to which an order has been made under paragraph (3)(b). This provision is a reflection of the court's discretion in granting a separate trial in certain scenarios in which the interests of justice are not served by a joint trial. The ability to order a separate trial lies with the court and is informed by various factors such as the number of counts, the complexity of the evidence, and the potential for prejudice against the accused. The court may order a separate trial upon application by the accused or defendant, or on its own motion. In either case, the order must be grounded on a consideration of the exceptional circumstances that warrant such a separate trial. Various factors may lead to a determination that a separate trial is necessary. For instance, where the evidence relating to one of the counts is significantly different from the others, a separate trial may be appropriate to avoid confusion among the jurors. Similarly, where some counts involve a co-accused or a co-defendant who has a different defense, a separate trial may be necessary to prevent unfair prejudice to the accused. Additionally, where the risk of a miscarriage of justice is high due to the complexity of the evidence, a separate trial may be necessary to ensure a fair trial for the accused. At the same time, a separate trial can have the effect of imposing additional burdens on the accused, as it requires additional time and resources. In some instances, a separate trial can undermine the interests of justice by leading to inconsistent verdicts or overlapping evidence. Overall, Section 591(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada strikes a balance between the interests of justice and the rights of the accused by giving the court the discretion to order separate trials in certain circumstances. The provision underscores the importance of ensuring fair and impartial trials, while also taking into account the practical realities of the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the key to determining whether a separate trial is necessary is to balance the interests of justice against the costs to the accused, and to ensure that the outcome is fair and just for all concerned.

STRATEGY

Section 591(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows for the possibility of an accused or defendant to be tried separately on counts that are related to an order made under paragraph (3)(b). This provision can have significant strategic implications for both the prosecution and the defence, and a careful analysis of the potential risks and benefits is essential in determining the best course of action. One of the most significant strategic considerations when dealing with Section 591(6) is whether the prosecution wishes to proceed with separate trials or consolidate the charges into one trial. In cases where the evidence against the accused is weak or the charges are complex and difficult to prove, the prosecution may choose to limit the number of counts that are tried in a single trial, reducing the risk of an acquittal or mistrial. This strategy can also help to prevent the jury from being overwhelmed with information, improving the likelihood of a conviction on the remaining counts. On the other hand, if the prosecution has a strong case and wishes to maximize the likelihood of a conviction on all charges, they may choose to consolidate all of the counts into a single trial. This approach can be particularly effective when the offences are closely related and the evidence on one count may be used to bolster the case on others. Another important consideration is the impact of separate trials on the defence. If an accused is facing multiple charges and is tried separately on each count, they will be forced to go through the process of a trial multiple times, potentially over several months or even years. This can be an emotionally and financially draining experience for the accused, particularly if they are in custody awaiting trial. Additionally, separate trials may expose the defence to the risk of inconsistent verdicts, where the accused is found guilty on some counts but not others. To avoid these risks, the defence may choose to seek a joint trial of all the charges, arguing that the counts are sufficiently related and that a consolidated trial would be more efficient and fair. This approach can also help to prevent the prosecution from engaging in "trial by instalment," where they systematically try the accused on each count separately, wearing down the defence with each successive trial. Ultimately, the decision on whether to seek separate or joint trials under Section 591(6) will depend on a careful weighing of the risks and benefits in each specific case. Other factors that may influence this decision include the nature and strength of the evidence, the complexity of the charges, and the strategic goals of both the prosecution and the defence. By carefully considering these factors and developing a clear and effective litigation strategy, both sides can maximize their chances of success in a trial.