INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section allows a court of appeal to review and potentially change a decision made by a judge in certain sections of the Criminal Code.
SECTION WORDING
680(1) A decision made by a judge under section 522 or subsection 524(4) or (5) or a decision made by a judge of the court of appeal under section 261 or 679 may, on the direction of the chief justice or acting chief justice of the court of appeal, be reviewed by that court and that court may, if it does not confirm the decision, (a) vary the decision; or (b) substitute such other decision as, in its opinion, should have been made.
EXPLANATION
Section 680(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the review of decisions made by judges in specific circumstances. These circumstances include decisions made under section 522, which deals with the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of an accused person, as well as subsection 524(4) and (5), which relate to the detention of an accused person before trial. Additionally, decisions made by a judge of the court of appeal under section 261 or 679 may also be reviewed. The purpose of this section is to ensure that decisions made by judges in these critical stages of the criminal justice process are subject to review by a higher court. This allows for any errors or oversights in the initial decision-making to be corrected, to ensure that the rights of the accused and the integrity of the justice system are upheld. If the court of appeal determines that the initial decision made by the judge is not appropriate, it may either vary the decision or substitute it with another decision that it deems more appropriate. This gives the court of appeal the power to ensure that the accused's rights and freedoms are respected and that justice is served in each case. Overall, section 680(1) serves as an important safeguard within the Canadian criminal justice system, ensuring that critical decisions made at key stages of the process are reviewed and scrutinized to ensure that justice is truly served.
COMMENTARY
Section 680(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides provisions for reviewing the decisions made by judges under section 522 or subsection 524(4) or (5) or a decision made by a judge of the court of appeal under section 261 or 679. The chief justice or acting chief justice of the court of appeal has the power to review the decision, and if they do not confirm it, they can vary the decision or substitute such other decision as they think should have been made. This provision is essential for ensuring that justice is served and that the decisions made by judges are fair and just. It provides a safeguard against potential errors and biases that may have occurred during the decision-making process. By allowing for a review of the decision, the court of appeal can correct any mistakes that may have been made and ensure that the law is applied correctly. One of the main benefits of this provision is that it allows for the court of appeal to replace a decision if it deems fit. This means that if the original decision was incorrect or unfair, the court of appeal can substitute a decision that is more appropriate and fair. It also allows for consistency in the application of the law, as different judges may interpret the law differently. By allowing for a review of decisions, the court of appeal can ensure that the law is applied consistently across different cases, and legal precedent is followed where necessary. Another benefit of this provision is that it safeguards against potential biases or errors that may have occurred during the decision-making process. Judges are human, and they may make mistakes or be swayed by personal biases or opinions. By allowing for a review of the decision, the court of appeal can ensure that these biases or errors are corrected, and justice is served. Overall, section 680(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision for ensuring that justice is served and that the decisions made by judges are fair and just. It provides a safeguard against potential errors and biases that may have occurred during the decision-making process, and allows for consistency in the application of the law. It also ensures that the law is applied correctly and that legal precedent is followed where necessary.
STRATEGY
Section 680(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an avenue for parties to have a judge's decision reviewed by the Court of Appeal. While this section is available to both the Crown and the defence, there are certain strategic considerations that each party may need to take into account when considering whether or not to seek a review. For the Crown, one strategic consideration may be whether seeking a review could result in a harsher sentence for the accused. This is because the Court of Appeal has the power to vary the decision or substitute another decision. Therefore, if the Crown is seeking a review in hopes of obtaining a harsher sentence, they must be confident that the original decision was too lenient and that seeking a review is worth the risk. Additionally, the Crown may need to consider the potential time and resource constraints of seeking a review. Pursuing a review requires resources and adds an additional layer of complexity to the case. Therefore, they may need to weigh whether seeking a review is worth the time and resources it would require. On the other hand, the defence may consider seeking a review if they believe that the original decision was too harsh. In this case, the defence must be prepared to present their case to the Court of Appeal and convince the court that the decision should be varied or substituted. Additionally, the defence may need to consider whether seeking a review could result in a harsher sentence if the Court of Appeal agrees with the original decision. Timing is also a crucial strategic consideration when dealing with section 680(1). Parties must ensure that they file the necessary paperwork within the required timeframes if they wish to seek a review. Delaying seeking a review could result in the forfeiture of this opportunity and may impact the outcome of the case. Overall, the decision to seek a review under section 680(1) requires careful consideration of the potential outcomes and the resources required to pursue it. Both the Crown and the defence must be prepared to present their case thoroughly and take into account the potential risks and benefits of seeking a review.