INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
The similarity of name in summary conviction proceedings is evidence of the defendant being the offender referred to in a certificate or copy of a summary conviction, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
SECTION WORDING
667(2.1) In any summary conviction proceedings, where the name of a defendant is similar to the name of an offender referred to in a certificate made under subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) in respect of a summary conviction or referred to in a copy of a summary conviction mentioned in subsection (2), that similarity of name is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, evidence that the defendant is the offender referred to in the certificate or the copy of the summary conviction.
EXPLANATION
Section 667(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important legal provision that applies to summary conviction proceedings. When a defendant's name is similar to the name of an offender referred to in a certificate or copy of a summary conviction, the similarity of name is considered evidence, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the defendant is the same person as the offender referred to in the certificate or copy of the summary conviction. What this means is that if an individual is accused of a crime and their name is similar to that of another person who has previously been convicted of the same or a similar crime, then this provision allows the court to presume that the two individuals are one and the same, unless there is evidence to the contrary. This is especially important in summary conviction proceedings, where cases are typically less serious and the process is faster and more streamlined than in other types of criminal trials. The provision is designed to ensure that those who have been previously convicted of a crime are not able to avoid the consequences of their actions by simply changing their name. By providing this presumption, the court is able to expedite the proceedings and avoid unnecessary delays and expenses. Overall, section 667(2.1) is an important provision that helps to ensure the fair administration of justice in summary conviction proceedings, while still allowing for the possibility of presenting evidence to challenge the presumption of similarity of name.
COMMENTARY
Section 667 (2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows for the comparison of names in summary conviction proceedings. This provision is based on the principle of similarity of names, which means that if the name of a defendant is similar to the name of an offender referred to in a certificate or a copy of a summary conviction, then the defendant is presumed to be the same person unless there is evidence to the contrary. The purpose of this provision is to facilitate the identification of offenders and to prevent the possibility of mistaken identity. It ensures that offenders cannot avoid punishment by changing their name or using a false identity. This provision is especially relevant in cases where the defendant has a common name or where there are multiple people with the same name in a jurisdiction. The provision has some limitations. Firstly, it only applies to summary conviction proceedings, which are the least serious offences in the Canadian legal system. It is not applicable to indictable offences, which are more serious offences that carry a higher penalty. Secondly, it is only a presumption and not conclusive evidence of guilt. The defendant has the right to present evidence to rebut the presumption. Furthermore, the provision requires the name similarity to be established in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. This means that the prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant is the same person as the offender referred to in the certificate or the copy of a summary conviction. The prosecution cannot rely solely on the similarity of names to secure a conviction. They must provide additional evidence that links the defendant to the offence. Another limitation of the provision is that it may lead to wrongful convictions. The presumption of guilt based on name similarity may create a bias against the defendant and may result in an unfair trial. There have been cases in which innocent people have been wrongly convicted due to mistaken identity. Therefore, it is important to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to support the presumption of guilt based on name similarity. In conclusion, Section 667 (2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that aims to promote the identification of offenders and prevent mistaken identity in summary conviction proceedings. The provision is based on the principle of similarity of names and allows for a presumption of guilt. However, it has some limitations and can lead to wrongful convictions if there is insufficient evidence to support the presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is important to ensure that there is a balance between the presumption of guilt and the defendant's right to a fair trial.
STRATEGY
When dealing with Section 667(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that must be taken into account. This section presents particular challenges for defendants, as it allows for evidence of previous convictions to be presented as evidence in their current proceedings, even where those convictions are not directly related to the charges they are facing. The first strategic consideration is to carefully review any certificate or copy of a summary conviction referred to in the section. This will ensure that the information contained in those documents accurately reflects the defendant's previous convictions. If the information is inaccurate, it may be possible to challenge the use of those documents as evidence, or to appeal any convictions that were based on incorrect information. Another strategic consideration is to gather evidence that contradicts the proposition that the defendant is the offender referred to in the certificate or copy of a summary conviction. This may include testimony from witnesses who can place the defendant in a different location at the time of the previous offence, evidence of a different physical appearance or identifying markers, or other evidence that creates doubt as to whether the defendant is the same person referred to in the certificate. A third strategic consideration is to carefully choose the most effective defence strategy that accounts for this section of the Criminal Code. A defence lawyer may need to consider whether it is best to challenge the validity of the certificate or copy of summary conviction, to argue that the previous convictions are not relevant to the charges at hand, or to present a defence that demonstrates that the defendant is not the same person referred to in the previous convictions. There are also strategies that can be used to prevent this section from being applied at all. For example, a defendant may be able to plead guilty to the charges in question, in exchange for the Crown prosecutor agreeing not to rely on any previous convictions as evidence. Alternatively, a lawyer may be able to negotiate with the Crown prosecutor to have the charges stayed or withdrawn, based on insufficient evidence or other factors. Overall, the use of Section 667(2.1) of the Criminal Code presents significant challenges for defendants. It is therefore essential to carefully review any certificates or copies of summary convictions, gather evidence that contradicts the inference that the defendant is the same person referred to in those documents, and employ an effective defence strategy that accounts for this section of the Criminal Code.