section 686(1)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Section 686(1) outlines the powers of the court of appeal when hearing an appeal in a criminal case.

SECTION WORDING

686(1) On the hearing of an appeal against a conviction or against a verdict that the appellant is unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the court of appeal (a) may allow the appeal where it is of the opinion that (i) the verdict should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence, (ii) the judgment of the trial court should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision on a question of law, or (iii) on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice; (b) may dismiss the appeal where (i) the court is of the opinion that the appellant, although he was not properly convicted on a count or part of the indictment, was properly convicted on another count or part of the indictment, (ii) the appeal is not decided in favour of the appellant on any ground mentioned in paragraph (a), (iii) notwithstanding that the court is of the opinion that on any ground mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii) the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, it is of the opinion that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred, or (iv) notwithstanding any procedural irregularity at trial, the trial court had jurisdiction over the class of offence of which the appellant was convicted and the court of appeal is of the opinion that the appellant suffered no prejudice thereby; (c) may refuse to allow the appeal where it is of the opinion that the trial court arrived at a wrong conclusion respecting the effect of a special verdict, may order the conclusion to be recorded that appears to the court to be required by the verdict and may pass a sentence that is warranted in law in substitution for the sentence passed by the trial court; or (d) may set aside a conviction and find the appellant unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and may exercise any of the powers of the trial court conferred by or referred to in section 672.45 in any manner deemed appropriate to the court of appeal in the circumstances.

EXPLANATION

Section 686(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the powers of the court of appeal in cases where an accused person has appealed their conviction or a verdict of being unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. The court of appeal has several options to consider in these cases. It may allow the appeal if it finds the verdict to be unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, if the trial court made an error in law, or if there was a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, the court of appeal may also dismiss the appeal if it finds that the appellant was properly convicted on at least one count of the indictment, or if it does not find any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court of appeal may refuse to allow the appeal and order a sentence to be passed that is required by the special verdict, or it may set aside the conviction and find the appellant unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder with the ability to exercise the powers of the trial court under section 672.45. Overall, this section allows the court of appeal to carefully consider the circumstances of a case and make appropriate decisions based on the evidence presented.

COMMENTARY

Section 686(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada lays out the grounds on which a conviction or verdict can be appealed. This provision is an important safeguard of justice, designed to ensure that errors made during a trial are corrected and that those who are wrongfully convicted are not left to suffer the consequences of a miscarriage of justice. Subparagraph (a) of section 686(1) outlines three grounds on which an appeal can be allowed, namely: (i) if the verdict is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence; (ii) if there was a wrong decision on a question of law; or (iii) if there was a miscarriage of justice. These grounds are broad and flexible, allowing courts to overturn convictions in cases where the trial process was flawed in some significant way. Subparagraph (b) deals with cases where the conviction was technically incorrect but where the court nevertheless takes the view that the appellant was properly convicted on another count or part of the indictment. In such cases, the appeal is dismissed. This provision recognizes that in many cases, even if a procedural error occurred during the trial, the ultimate outcome of the case would not have been different had the error not occurred. Subparagraph (c) allows the court to refuse to allow the appeal in cases where it believes that the trial court misunderstood or misapplied a special verdict. In such cases, the court can correct the conclusion and pass a sentence that is in accordance with the law. Finally, subparagraph (d) provides for cases where the court finds that the appellant was unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. In such cases, the court can set aside the conviction and find the appellant not guilty by reason of mental disorder. The court may then exercise any of the powers conferred on the trial court under section 672.45 of the Criminal Code. Section 686(1) is an important provision in the Criminal Code, as it provides a mechanism for correcting errors made during the trial process. It also serves as a safeguard against wrongful convictions, allowing defendants to appeal their convictions on a variety of grounds. Ultimately, this provision helps to ensure that justice is served, and that the rights of defendants are protected.

STRATEGY

Section 686(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the powers and options available to the court of appeal when hearing an appeal against a conviction or verdict. When dealing with this section, there are several strategic considerations that should be taken into account to ensure the best possible outcome for the appellant. One of the first strategic considerations is to identify the grounds of appeal that are most likely to succeed. According to the section, there are three possible grounds for allowing an appeal: an unreasonable verdict, a wrong decision on a question of law, or a miscarriage of justice. Appellants and their legal teams must carefully review the trial transcripts and evidence to determine which of these grounds are the most compelling in their case. This will help them focus their arguments and evidence on the most promising grounds for success. Another important strategic consideration is to identify any procedural irregularities or errors that may have occurred during the trial. Even if the appellant's guilt is not in doubt, procedural errors may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice or violated the appellant's rights. Examples of procedural irregularities include improperly admitted evidence, biased jurors, or incorrect jury instructions. Appellants should carefully review the trial transcripts and consult with legal experts to identify any such irregularities and their potential impact on the case. A third strategic consideration is to determine the most appropriate legal remedies or sentences that may be available if the appeal is successful. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the court of appeal may have the power to set aside the conviction, order a new trial, or impose a different sentence. Appellants and their legal teams must carefully review the potential outcomes of a successful appeal and determine the best course of action to achieve their desired outcome. Overall, successful appeals under section 686(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada require careful review of the trial transcripts and evidence, identification of compelling grounds for appeal, and strategic planning for potential legal remedies and outcomes. Some strategies that could be employed include carefully identifying and focusing on the most promising grounds for appeal, identifying and leveraging any procedural errors or irregularities, and developing a clear plan for legal remedies and outcomes. By employing these strategies, appellants can increase their chances of success and achieve the best possible outcome for their case.