section 666

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section allows the prosecutor to present evidence of the accuseds previous convictions if the accused presents evidence of their good character during trial.

SECTION WORDING

666 Where, at a trial, the accused adduces evidence of his good character, the prosecutor may, in answer thereto, before a verdict is returned, adduce evidence of the previous conviction of the accused for any offences, including any previous conviction by reason of which a greater punishment may be imposed.

EXPLANATION

Section 666 of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the admissibility of evidence regarding the character of an accused individual during a trial. According to this section, if an accused person presents evidence of their good character, a prosecutor can introduce evidence of their previous convictions. This provision is designed to prevent a defendant from using their good character to mislead the jury or judge into believing that they would not have committed the crime with which they are charged. The section is crucial in the Canadian criminal justice system because it ensures that the jury or judge considers all available evidence in arriving at a verdict. Essentially, the provision allows the prosecutor to rebut the evidence of good character provided by the defendant. Without this provision, an accused person could present evidence of their good character and perhaps convince the judge or jury that they are innocent, regardless of their past convictions. However, it is important to note that this section applies only when the accused has presented evidence of their own good character. The prosecutor cannot introduce evidence of the accused's previous convictions if the defendant has not introduced evidence of their good character. Moreover, the prosecutor can only introduce evidence of previous convictions that are relevant to the case. The previous convictions must be related to the charge at hand or must increase the severity of the punishment that can be imposed. In conclusion, Section 666 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that ensures that evidence related to the character of the accused is fairly presented in a trial. By balancing the evidence provided by both the accused and the prosecutor, this section promotes a fair and just outcome in criminal cases.

COMMENTARY

Section 666 of the Criminal Code of Canada can be viewed as both a useful tool for prosecutors and a potential infringement upon an accused's fundamental right to a fair trial. The section allows for prosecutors to introduce evidence of an accused's previous convictions if the accused has introduced evidence of their good character. This provision is meant to offset any favourable impression of the accused that may have been created by their evidence of good character. On one hand, this section of the Criminal Code of Canada can be viewed as a necessary safeguard to ensure that the trial process remains truthful and just. Evidence of an accused's previous convictions can provide the jury with a more complete understanding of the accused's character and past behaviour, allowing for a more informed decision to be made. This ensures that guilty parties are appropriately punished and deterred from reoffending in the future. Furthermore, this section can benefit the accused by allowing them to present evidence of their good character, which may mitigate their sentence if convicted. On the other hand, this section of the Criminal Code of Canada has the potential to be abused by prosecutors and could be seen as infringing on the fundamental right to a fair trial. Allowing evidence of previous convictions to be introduced may create an unfairly negative impression of the accused in the eyes of the jury. This could be particularly problematic in cases where an accused's previous convictions do not relate to the charges they are currently facing. Further, it may be argued that this provision does not sufficiently consider individuals who may have been wrongfully convicted in the past. Ultimately, the usefulness of this section of the Criminal Code of Canada will depend on its implementation in practice. The appropriate balance must be struck between allowing prosecutors to present relevant information to the jury without creating an unfair prejudice against the accused. Furthermore, it is important that the provision is only used in cases where it is truly necessary, rather than being relied upon as a matter of course. Overall, Section 666 of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important mechanism for ensuring the truth is presented in court, but it must be applied with care and consideration to prevent unjust outcomes.

STRATEGY

Section 666 of the Criminal Code of Canada is of immense significance in criminal trials, especially in cases where the prosecution intends to use evidence of the accused's previous criminal convictions as a rebuttal to evidence of their good character. The strategic considerations in dealing with this section could potentially make or break a case, and a successful outcome for the defendant may depend on the ability to employ effective strategies. One of the most significant considerations is how to deal with the introduction of evidence of previous convictions. The way the defense counsel responds to this evidence could potentially taint the perceptions of the judge or jury. For example, if the defense counsel appears overly defensive, it may suggest to the judge or jury that there is something to hide, which may weaken the case. On the other hand, if the defense counsel downplays the evidence, and does not address it effectively, it could harm the defense's case. A key strategy that could be employed is to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. The defense counsel could argue that the previous convictions are not relevant to the current case, or that introducing the evidence would lead to wrongful prejudice against the accused. This strategy could become very effective if evidence of the previous conviction has been secured over a long period and may not be of the best quality or may have been obtained illegally, or even without a warrant. Another strategy could be to present affirmative evidence of the accused's good character. This could include bringing forward evidence of outstanding acts of charity or goodwill, testimonials from reputable members of the community or private firms, or establishing a consistency in his or her own actions to challenge the weight of the evidence proffered by the prosecutor under 666. Another strategy is to preemptively address the issue of previous convictions. This strategy involves acknowledging that the accused has indeed been convicted of prior offenses, and make a strong case for why the current case is different and warrants a different verdict. The defense counsel could argue that the accused has acknowledged the gravity of their past mistakes and made serious efforts to reform and move beyond that history of criminal acts. However, in cases where previous convictions cannot be excluded, the defense must get ahead of the evidence the prosecutor seeks to introduce. For instance, the defense can use them to its advantage and take control of the narrative, rather than allowing the prosecution free rein over it. This means preparing the client to take responsibility for his or her mistakes but also highlighting the more positive aspects of his or her past. In other words, it means trying to get ahead of the stigma that past convictions may have on the case and the person on trial. Lastly, the defense counsel could consider the options of plea bargaining or seeking alternative resolutions. The defense could agree to a plea deal with the prosecutor that would allow the accused to avoid being found guilty of the more serious offense. In other cases with good merit, seeking an alternative route to resolution, such as restorative justice, may be possible. In conclusion, Section 666 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical consideration in criminal trials. For the accused, the prosecution's evidence of past criminal convictions could harm their case if not dealt with effectively. The best strategy will depend on the specific circumstances of each case, but an experienced and well-informed defense counsel can help the accused navigate this minefield, ensuring that justice is served.