Criminal Code of Canada - section 686(6) - Where appeal allowed against verdict of unfit to stand trial

section 686(6)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

If an appeal against a verdict of unfitness to stand trial is allowed, a new trial must be ordered.

SECTION WORDING

686(6) Where a court of appeal allows an appeal against a verdict that the accused is unfit to stand trial, it shall, subject to subsection (7), order a new trial.

EXPLANATION

Section 686(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the situation where a court of appeal allows an appeal against a verdict that the accused is unfit to stand trial. This provision states that in such a case, the court of appeal must order a new trial, subject to subsection (7). The reason for this provision is to ensure that a fair trial is conducted. If an accused person is found unfit to stand trial, they are unable to defend themselves and participate fully in the legal process. In such a situation, a new trial is necessary to ensure that justice is served. Subsection (7) of section 686 sets out certain exceptions to the requirement for a new trial. For example, if the court of appeal determines that the accused person is still unfit to stand trial, then a new trial may not be ordered. Similarly, if the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that a new trial is not necessary to ensure a fair trial, then a new trial may not be ordered. Overall, section 686(6) reflects the importance of a fair trial in the Canadian justice system. It ensures that accused persons who are found unfit to stand trial are not left without recourse, but are given the opportunity for a fair trial if their appeal is successful. In this way, section 686(6) upholds the principles of justice and protects the rights of accused persons.

COMMENTARY

The Criminal Code of Canada is a comprehensive set of laws that govern criminal activities within the Canadian jurisdiction. One specific section of the code, 686(6), deals with the outcome of an appeal against a verdict that the accused is unfit to stand trial. This section mandates that where a court of appeal allows an appeal against such a verdict, it must order a new trial, subject to subsection (7). The significance of this section lies in its role in ensuring that justice is delivered to both the accused and the victim. The purpose of a trial is to ascertain the guilt or innocence of an accused person, and if the accused is found to be unfit to stand trial, there is a risk that justice will not be served. For example, if the person is unfit because of a mental illness that affects their ability to understand the proceedings and make informed decisions, a trial cannot proceed as they may not comprehend the charges against them. As such, a verdict of unfitness is often seen as a denial of justice to both the accused and the complainant. Allowing an appeal against an unfitness verdict is a significant step towards rectifying this situation. If a court of appeal finds that the initial ruling was incorrect, it must order a new trial. This not only ensures that a fair trial takes place but also ensures that the accused person has the opportunity to defend themselves in court and clear their name. Additionally, Section 686(6) also serves as a check on the judicial system, ensuring that errors made during the trial process can be corrected. The legal system is not perfect, and mistakes can be made during the initial trial. As a result, it is important to have a mechanism for revisiting past rulings. However, Section 686(6) is subject to subsection (7), which provides for certain exceptional circumstances under which a new trial is not necessary. These include situations where the complainant has died, disappeared, or cannot reasonably be found. In such cases, the court may decide that it is not necessary to order a new trial, and instead, set aside the original verdict. In conclusion, Section 686(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial part of the legal framework in Canada. It serves to ensure that fairness and justice are the main priorities in the legal system. The provision of a new trial following the appeal of an unfit verdict also validates the fairness of the justice system to all parties involved in the trial process. However, the provisions of subsection (7) also ensure that justice is not denied due to exceptional circumstances and that the court can avoid ordering a new trial which would not be beneficial. Overall, this section provides a reasonable and flexible approach to ensuring justice in the Canadian legal system.

STRATEGY

Section 686(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a significant opportunity for the accused to challenge a verdict of unfitness to stand trial. When a court of appeal allows such an appeal, it is authorized to order a new trial. This provision calls for strategic considerations that should be taken into account when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code. Here are some of the strategic considerations and strategies that could be employed: 1. The nature of the evidence: The first strategic consideration is the nature of the evidence presented. The accused could employ multiple strategies to challenge the verdict. For instance, they could argue that the evidence relied on to establish unfitness was inadequate, or that the lower court jury or judge wrongly assessed the evidence. The accused may also challenge the credibility of the medical evidence supporting the verdict. 2. The possibility of an acquittal: Another strategic consideration is whether there is the possibility of an acquittal. The accused may wish to avoid a new trial altogether and seek acquittal instead. In such cases, legal counsel could argue that the medical evidence relied upon by the lower court was incorrect, or that a different expert had a more accurate diagnosis. 3. Case management: The accused or their legal counsel should also consider the case management implications of a new trial. Case management includes the strategies of dealing with the case based on its complexity and schedule. Case management approach can be challenging. For example, the accused may have a preference to have their case quickly resolved, while the Crown may seek to entangle the process in procedures and red-tape for tactical reasons. Thus, careful consideration should be given to how the defense's strategy will be impacted by the scheduling and management of the new trial. 4. Timing considerations: The timing of a new trial is also crucial. Both the accused and the prosecution should consider the optimal timing, taking into account considerations such as witness availability, the availability of experts, and potential problems of delays inherent in the system. 5. Negotiation possibilities: Finally, negotiation should be another strategic consideration. The accused may use a successful appeal to leverage the Crown to negotiate a lesser plea deal. For example, the accused may agree to plead guilty if the Crown drops more significant charges or sentences, or seek leniency. Alternatively, the prosecution may adjust charges to reflect the accused's less diminished criminal responsibility. In conclusion, Section 686(6) of the Canadian Criminal Code provides an important strategic opportunity for the accused to challenge a verdict of unfitness to stand trial. The accused or their legal counsel should consider the nature of the evidence, the prospects of an acquittal, case management, timing considerations, and the possibility of negotiation when developing their strategy.