INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
If a trial was started but no verdict was given, the proceedings must start again as if no evidence had been given.
SECTION WORDING
669.2(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), if the trial was commenced but no adjudication was made or verdict rendered, the judge, provincial court judge, justice or other person before whom the proceedings are continued shall, without further election by an accused, commence the trial again as if no evidence on the merits had been taken.
EXPLANATION
Section 669.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with situations where a trial has commenced but no adjudication was made or verdict rendered. In such cases, the judge, provincial court judge, justice or other person before whom the proceedings are continued is required to commence the trial again, as if no evidence on the merits had been taken. This means that the accused person will be retried, and the trial will start from the beginning, with no consideration of any evidence that was presented in the earlier proceedings. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that accused persons are given a fair trial. If an adjudication was not made in a previous trial, it cannot be assumed that justice has already been served. This provision gives the accused person another opportunity to present evidence and defend their case. It also ensures that the trial proceeds fairly and justly, without any bias or preconceived notions based on the previous proceedings. However, it is important to note that this provision is subject to subsections (4) and (5) of section 669.2 of the Criminal Code. Subsection (4) deals with situations where the accused person is acquitted of the offence, and subsection (5) deals with situations where the accused person is not acquitted but the proceedings are discontinued for reasons other than the convenience of the court. In such cases, the trial cannot be commenced again. Overall, section 669.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays an important role in ensuring that accused persons are given a fair trial, and that justice is served. It provides the necessary framework to ensure that the trial proceeds in an unbiased and impartial manner, which is essential for the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.
COMMENTARY
Section 669.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with a scenario where a trial has commenced but no adjudication was made or verdict rendered. It outlines that in such instances, the judge, provincial court judge, justice, or another person before whom the proceedings are continued, shall commence the trial again as if no evidence on the merits had been taken, without further election by an accused. This section of the Criminal Code of Canada serves to ensure that justice is served in cases where the original trial was not completed, and that the rights of the accused are protected. One of the key protections provided by Section 669.2(3) is that the accused does not need to make a further election to proceed with a new trial. This ensures that the accused is not unfairly burdened with additional costs or delay in the proceedings. It also ensures that the accused is not penalized for circumstances beyond their control, such as a mistrial or other similar events that may occur during a trial. By commencing the trial again as if no evidence on the merits had been taken, the integrity of the legal process is maintained, and the accused is given a fair trial. Another important aspect of Section 669.2(3) is that it ensures that the evidence from the previous trial is not considered in the new trial. This is important because it helps to protect the rights of the accused and ensure that they receive a fair trial. If the evidence from the previous trial was used in the new trial, the accused may be unfairly prejudiced, which could lead to an unjust outcome. By starting the trial again as if no evidence on the merits had been taken, the new trial is unbiased and allows for the evidence to be presented in a fair and just manner. Overall, Section 669.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves as an important protection for the rights of the accused and ensures that justice is served in cases where the original trial was not completed for whatever reason. It ensures that the accused is not unfairly burdened with additional costs or delay, and that the new trial is unbiased and fair. By maintaining the integrity of the legal process, Section 669.2(3) is an important provision that ensures that justice is served for all parties involved.
STRATEGY
Section 669.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides for the recommencement of a trial if it was commenced but no adjudication was made or verdict rendered. This section is important in ensuring the fairness and integrity of the trial process, as it allows for a new trial to be conducted in the event that the initial trial was not completed for any reason. Strategic considerations when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada can vary depending on the circumstances of the case. However, some common strategies that could be employed include: 1. Preparing for a new trial: If it is expected that the trial will be recommenced under section 669.2(3), one of the most important strategic considerations is to prepare for the new trial. This includes reviewing the evidence that was presented at the initial trial, assessing its strengths and weaknesses, and strategizing accordingly. 2. Addressing weaknesses in the prosecution's case: If the initial trial was not completed due to weaknesses in the prosecution's case, one strategy could be to focus on addressing those weaknesses in the new trial. This could involve seeking additional evidence or testimony that was not available at the time of the initial trial, or presenting the evidence in a different way that is more compelling. 3. Seeking a plea deal: In some cases, it may be advantageous to seek a plea deal with the prosecution rather than proceeding with a new trial. This could be particularly beneficial if the evidence against the accused is strong and a conviction is likely. In such cases, a plea deal could result in a more lenient sentence or other favorable terms. 4. Challenging the admissibility of evidence: If there are concerns about the admissibility of evidence that was presented at the initial trial, one strategy could be to challenge the admissibility of that evidence in the new trial. This could involve arguing that the evidence was obtained illegally or improperly, or that it is hearsay or otherwise unreliable. 5. Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the case: As with any criminal trial, it is important to carefully assess the strengths and weaknesses of the case in order to develop an effective strategy. This includes considering the nature and weight of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and any other relevant factors. Overall, section 669.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an important safeguard for the fairness and integrity of the trial process. By carefully considering the strategic considerations listed above, accused individuals and their legal counsel can increase their chances of achieving a favorable outcome in the event that a new trial is required.