Criminal Code of Canada - section 672.32(2) - Burden of proof

section 672.32(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The burden of proof that an accused is fit to stand trial is on the party who asserts it and must be proven on a balance of probabilities.

SECTION WORDING

672.32(2) The burden of proof that the accused has subsequently become fit to stand trial is on the party who asserts it, and is discharged by proof on the balance of probabilities.

EXPLANATION

Section 672.32(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that addresses the issue of fitness to stand trial. This section makes it clear that if an accused person is found to be unfit to stand trial at any point during the legal proceedings, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the person has subsequently become fit to stand trial lies with the party who asserts it. In practical terms, this means that if the Crown or defense attorney wants to argue that an accused person is now fit to stand trial, they must provide evidence to support their claim. This evidence must be sufficient to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the accused person is now able to understand the nature of the charges against them and is able to participate in their defense. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that no one is tried or convicted while they are unfit to do so. If a person is not fit to stand trial, they are unable to understand the charges against them, communicate with their legal counsel, or participate in their defense. Attempting to proceed with a trial under these circumstances would be a violation of their right to a fair trial. By placing the burden of proof on the party asserting that the accused is now fit to stand trial, Section 672.32(2) ensures that there is a rigorous process in place for assessing an accused person's fitness to stand trial. It also helps to protect against any risk of an unfair trial or wrongful conviction that could result from proceeding with legal proceedings when the accused is not able to fully participate in their defense.

COMMENTARY

Section 672.32(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the burden of proof required to determine whether an accused person is fit to stand trial. According to this provision, the burden of proving that the accused has subsequently become fit to stand trial falls on the party that asserts it, and must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. The concept of fitness to stand trial refers to a legal determination of an accused's ability to understand the nature and consequences of the legal process, as well as to communicate effectively with legal counsel and to participate in one's own defense. Fitness assessments are typically conducted by mental health professionals who evaluate the accused's cognitive and communicative abilities, as well as their psychological health, in order to determine whether they are capable of participating in the trial process. When an accused person is found to be unfit to stand trial, the trial is typically postponed until such time as they are able to regain fitness. In some cases, the accused may receive treatment or therapy in order to improve their fitness, such as through medical interventions for mental health conditions. Section 672.32(2) is an important provision in the Criminal Code because it establishes a clear standard for determining fitness to stand trial. The requirement for proof on the balance of probabilities means that the party asserting that the accused is fit to stand trial must provide evidence that it is more likely than not that the accused has regained their cognitive and communicative abilities. This standard is considered to be lower than the standard of proof required in criminal trials, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is an essential component of the Canadian justice system, in which an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. By placing the burden of proof on the party asserting fitness, the Criminal Code ensures that an accused person who may not be able to fully participate in their own defense is not subject to an unfair legal process. However, the burden of proof also places a responsibility on prosecutors and other legal actors to ensure that proper evaluations of the accused's fitness are conducted and that evidence of fitness or unfitness is presented in court. The failure to meet this burden of proof can result in a delay or cancellation of the trial, which can be detrimental to both the accused and to the criminal justice process as a whole. All in all, Section 672.32(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision for ensuring fair and equitable trials for accused persons. By requiring evidence on the balance of probabilities, the provision sets a clear and achievable standard for determining fitness to stand trial, while also placing a responsibility on legal actors to ensure that proper assessments are conducted and evidence is presented accordingly.

STRATEGY

The Criminal Code of Canada is a critical legislative instrument that guides the entire criminal justice system in Canada. Section 672.32(2) is one of the most critical provisions of the Canadian criminal justice system, as it speaks to the issue of fitness to stand trial. The legal standard for determining whether an accused is fit to stand trial is well established in Canadian jurisprudence, which provides that an accused must understand the nature of the proceedings against them and be able to communicate and instruct counsel. Some of the strategic considerations that may arise when dealing with section 672.32(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada include the following: 1. Gathering evidence To discharge the burden of proof that the accused has subsequently become fit to stand trial, the party making this allegation must provide evidence on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, it is crucial to gather present and past medical or psychiatric reports to determine if there is valid evidence to support an application for fitness. 2. Timing Timing is everything to an individual who is unfit to stand trial. If the Crown Prosecutor makes the application for fitness late, it could have some negative consequences concerning the accused person and their litigation process. It is essential to ensure that the application is timely made and that the accused is not subject to lengthy timeframes where they may be housed in a psychiatric facility. 3. Expert witnesses Due to the complexity surrounding a fitness application, it is crucial to seek the assistance of credible expert witnesses who can provide extensive medical reports, proof of treatment, and a diagnosis of the accused person's condition to support an application for fitness to stand trial. 4. Providing constitutional protection The Criminal Code of Canada provides protection for an individual accused of an offense and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. By upholding the constitution, the primary goal is to protect the rights of the accused person while balancing the protection of public safety and ensuring the person receives fair treatment throughout the court process. 5. Suggesting alternative options When the Crown Prosecutor is unable to discharge the burden of proof that the accused has subsequently become fit to stand trial, there are alternative options to consider. For example, if the accused's condition is long-lasting, it may be more suitable to consider some form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as diversion that excuse the offender from the legal process without suffering legal consequences. In conclusion, the application for fitness to stand trial is an intricate process that requires an understanding of the law, consideration of the accused person's welfare and expert opinion to determine whether there is a sufficient argument to potentially displace the constitutional right to trial. Counsel will need to gather extensive evidence, assess timing, considering expert opinion, safeguard constitutional rights, and potentially suggest alternative options during the fitness hearing. Ultimately, the outcome of this application will significantly impact the accused person's litigation journey.