Criminal Code of Canada - section 645(3) - Formal adjournment unnecessary

section 645(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Formal adjournment of trial is not required for subsection (2).

SECTION WORDING

645(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), no formal adjournment of trial or entry thereof is required.

EXPLANATION

Section 645(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a procedural provision that outlines certain rules in relation to the adjournment of a trial. This provision is part of the wider Canadian criminal law approach to conducting fair and efficient trials. Subsection (2) of section 645 states that a court may adjourn a trial at any time, before or after the start of the trial, if it considers it necessary in the interests of justice. This might be necessary, for example, if a key witness was unable to attend the trial on the scheduled date. Subsection (3) goes on to clarify that no formal adjournment of trial or entry thereof is required for the purposes of subsection (2). This means that when a court decides to adjourn a trial, it does not need to go through a formal process or document the adjournment anywhere. The purpose of subsection (3) appears to be to remove any procedural barriers that might prevent a court from adjourning a trial when it considers it necessary to do so. By removing the requirement for formal documentation or entry, the provision allows courts to act more quickly and efficiently in response to changing circumstances. Overall, section 645(3) is an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada because it places a strong emphasis on ensuring that trials are conducted fairly and efficiently. By giving judges more flexibility to adjourn a trial when needed, the provision helps to ensure that all parties involved in a criminal case have the best possible chance to present their arguments and receive a fair outcome.

COMMENTARY

Section 645(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that pertains to the circumstances under which a trial can be adjourned. In particular, it states that no formal adjournment of trial or entry thereof is required for the purpose of subsection (2). This provision is significant because it helps to expedite the criminal trial process by eliminating the need for unnecessary formalities. In order to understand the significance of Section 645(3), it is important to first consider subsection (2) of the same provision. Subsection (2) gives judges the discretion to adjourn a trial for any reason, including illness of a party, or witness, inability to compel attendance of a witness, delay caused by an unforeseen event or the unavailability of counsel. This means that in cases where a trial cannot proceed as planned due to unforeseen circumstances, such as the sudden illness of a witness, a judge can adjourn the trial to a later date in order to accommodate the situation. What Section 645(3) does is eliminate the need for formalities associated with adjourning a trial. Without the provision, a judge would need to formally adjourn the trial and enter the adjournment into the court record. With Section 645(3) in place, however, a judge can simply inform the parties of the adjournment and the reason for it. This provision has several benefits. Firstly, it helps to expedite the trial process by eliminating the need for unnecessary formalities. This can save valuable time and resources, particularly in cases where adjournments are required frequently. By eliminating the need for formal adjournments, the justice system can operate more efficiently and effectively. Secondly, Section 645(3) can help to reduce the costs associated with the trial process. Formal adjournments can be time-consuming and costly, as they require court time and resources. By eliminating the need for such formalities, parties can save money and resources, which can be allocated to other areas of the case. Finally, Section 645(3) can help to ensure that justice is delivered in a timely manner. In cases where an adjournment is required, formalities can prolong the process and delay the delivery of justice. By eliminating the need for such formalities, judges can make decisions more quickly and efficiently, ensuring that cases are resolved in a timely and just manner. In conclusion, Section 645(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that helps to expedite the criminal trial process by eliminating the need for unnecessary formalities. By allowing judges to adjourn trials without the need for formal adjournments, this provision can save time and resources, reduce costs, and ensure that justice is delivered in a timely and efficient manner.

STRATEGY

Section 645(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows for the resumption of a trial without a formal adjournment or entry. This section of the Criminal Code provides a useful tool for lawyers, judges, and litigants to streamline the trial process, save time, and reduce costs. In this article, we will explore some strategic considerations when dealing with Section 645(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada and discuss some strategies that could be employed. Strategic Considerations: The most significant strategic consideration when dealing with Section 645(3) is to determine whether the provision is applicable in a particular case. This provision is applicable when the court has adjourned the trial for any reason other than the request of the accused. The court may elect to resume the trial without any formalities such as the entry of the adjournment order or a formal adjournment application. It is upon the prosecution or the defense to request the resumption of the trial, and the court has the discretion to grant or deny such a request. Another strategic consideration is to analyze whether resuming the trial without a formal adjournment can favor the defense or the prosecution. If, in a particular case, the prosecution has successfully completed its witness list, and the defendant's evidence is minimal, the prosecution may elect to request a resumption of trial under Section 645(3). Resuming the trial could help the prosecution secure a timely conviction while witnesses' memories are still fresh. On the other hand, if a defense lawyer realizes that the prosecution has not prepared adequately and is limited in presenting and examining witnesses, the defense may request an adjournment to force the prosecution's hand. Strategies: One strategy for the defense is to use Section 645(3) to press for immediate acquittal. A savvy defense counsel may assess the case as one that is weak and use the Section to ask for an immediate verdict of not guilty. In cases where a defense lawyer has argued successfully that the prosecution has not met the necessary evidentiary threshold, the defense may request resuming the trial without the prosecution presenting any further evidence. The defense can then argue that the prosecution has not met the legal threshold and secure an immediate acquittal. Another strategy for the defense or prosecution is to use Section 645(3) to leverage the case to their advantage. A prudent prosecutor may, for instance, request the resumption of the trial under Section 645(3) to capitalize on an opportunity to confuse or intimidate the defendant or one of their witnesses, thereby pressuring them to change their testimony. A savvy defense lawyer may also use this Section to negotiate plea offers, especially when the prosecution is on the back foot and is unable to present a robust case. Conclusion: In conclusion, Section 645(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a useful tool for the resumption of a trial without a formal adjournment or entry. Strategic considerations when dealing with this section involve analyzing whether it is applicable in a specific case and identifying whether it favors the defense or prosecution. Strategies that could be employed include pressing for immediate acquittal, leveraging the case to one's advantage, and negotiating plea offers. Ultimately, the use of this section requires careful consideration and strategic planning to ensure that a favorable outcome is achieved.