INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
The judge must handle pleas of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, and pardon before the accused pleads further, without a jury.
SECTION WORDING
607(3) The pleas of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict and pardon shall be disposed of by the judge without a jury before the accused is called on to plead further.
EXPLANATION
Section 607(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is concerned with the handling of certain pleas in criminal cases. The three pleas referred to in the section are autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, and pardon. The term autrefois acquit means that the accused has already been acquitted (found not guilty) of the same offence. The term autrefois convict means that the accused has already been convicted of the same offence. A pardon refers to a decision by the government to forgive a person for their criminal offence and to release them from any further punishment. If a defendant raises any of these pleas, the judge must deal with them before the defendant is asked to enter a plea in the current case. The judge will consider the evidence presented and may ask for submissions from the prosecution and defence. If the judge decides that the plea is valid, the defendant will be discharged and will not face trial for the same offence again. If the plea is not considered valid, the defendant will be required to enter a plea in the current case. The purpose of this section is to ensure that cases are not tried multiple times for the same offence. The rule against double jeopardy is an important aspect of Canada's legal system, and it serves to prevent the harassment of defendants and to ensure fair trials. By requiring the judge to dispose of these pleas before a defendant enters a plea in the current case, this section helps to ensure that defendants are not unfairly prosecuted for the same offence.
COMMENTARY
Section 607(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with a legal concept that is fundamental to the Canadian justice system: the double jeopardy principle. This section sets out the procedures to be followed when a defendant raises the defence of "autrefois acquit," "autrefois convict," or "pardon" in a criminal trial. "Autrefois acquit" literally means "previously acquitted," and it refers to a situation where the defendant has been charged with a crime, but has already been acquitted of that crime in a prior trial. In such a case, the defendant cannot be tried again for the same offence, as this would constitute a violation of the double jeopardy principle. "Autrefois convict" means "previously convicted," and it applies in cases where the defendant has been charged with a crime, but has already been convicted of that crime in a prior trial. In such a case, the defendant cannot be tried again for the same offence, as this would also amount to a violation of the double jeopardy principle. "Pardon" refers to a situation where the defendant has been granted a pardon by the Governor General of Canada, or by the Lieutenant Governor of a province. A pardon effectively erases the criminal record of the defendant, and prevents them from being tried again for the same offence. Section 607(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates that these defences must be disposed of by the judge without a jury before the accused is called on to plead further. This means that if the defendant raises one of these defences, the judge must rule on it before the trial proceeds any further. If the judge rules in favour of the defence, the trial cannot proceed, as the double jeopardy principle would be violated. If the judge rules against the defence, the trial can proceed. This section of the Criminal Code of Canada is important because it ensures that defendants are not subjected to multiple trials for the same offence. The double jeopardy principle is a fundamental protection that is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is designed to prevent the state from continually harassing individuals by subjecting them to repeated trials. By providing clear procedures for dealing with the defence of "autrefois acquit," "autrefois convict," and "pardon," Section 607(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada helps to ensure that the double jeopardy principle is respected and upheld in Canadian courts. Overall, Section 607(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision that helps to safeguard the fundamental rights of accused individuals in the Canadian justice system. By setting out clear procedures for dealing with the defence of "autrefois acquit," "autrefois convict," and "pardon," this section ensures that defendants are protected from being subjected to multiple trials for the same offence, thereby upholding the principle of double jeopardy and ensuring that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner.
STRATEGY
Section 607(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada governs the pleas of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, and pardon. These pleas are significant in the context of criminal proceedings as they could result in the acquittal or conviction of the accused based on previous trials or legal proceedings. The first strategic consideration that arises from section 607(3) is the need for the accused and his or her legal team to assess the viability of the pleas of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, or pardon. The decision to raise any of these pleas would depend on the specific circumstances of the case, including the previous legal proceedings, the charges being brought, and the relevant legal principles. In evaluating the viability of these pleas, legal teams may rely on their knowledge and experience in criminal law, as well as consult relevant authorities, such as case law, legal commentary, or existing jurisprudence. They may also work closely with the accused to understand their motives and intentions, as well as to build a defence strategy that is aligned with their legal goals. Secondly, the timing of the plea is a key strategic decision point for legal teams handling a criminal case. Section 607(3) stipulates that these pleas shall be disposed of by the judge without a jury before the accused is called on to plead further. This means that the accused must make their plea at the earliest opportunity possible. Timing is critical as it could affect the admissibility of evidence, the scope of legal arguments, and the overall approach to the case. For example, a plea of autrefois acquit would be most appropriate when introduced before entering a plea of guilty or not guilty. Counsel must, therefore, carefully consider the timing of the plea in relation to other aspects of the proceedings. Another strategic consideration that follows from section 607(3) is the need for counsel to be adept at identifying issues that are likely to arise in the course of the case. Counsel must be experienced in identifying legal issues such as where new evidence has arisen since the previous trial(s) that make the plea of autrefois acquit arguable. Sound judgement is key to not becoming side-tracked on ancillary issues. In addition, counsel needs to be able to maintain their advocacy skills throughout the trial while evaluating and using these pleas. Counsel must have the ability to use them in a way that is strategically advantageous relative to other defences. This may require strategizing mid-trial or using in conjunction with other defences. Effective communication and preparation with the judge may be crucial when raising these pleas. This may involve legal and procedural discussions with the judge to ensure that they have a full understanding of the issues and arguments involved. Defence counsel must ensure that the judge is presented with a clear, coherent and corroborative argument when raising any of these pleas. Lastly, in evaluating the plea of pardon, counsel should take into account the conditions surrounding its provisions and what is required to make it stick in court. This might entail careful management of the accused to help demonstrate that they are doing their best to comply with the pardon in question. The Crown might argue that conditions have been violated, and counsel must consider contingencies should this occur. In conclusion, section 607(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides legal teams with another set of tools to handle criminal cases and mitigate possible punishment, but it requires careful consideration and management. Counsel must have a detailed understanding of both the legal principles and the specific complexities of the case. Further, counsel must be well-versed in using strategically employed skills to persuade the judge as well as to ensure that their client's best interests and human rights are protected.