section 767.1(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section explains the discharge of original surety when a substitute signs a recognizance for judicial interim release.

SECTION WORDING

767.1(2) Where a person substituted for a surety under a recognizance pursuant to subsection (1) signs the recognizance, the original surety is discharged, but the recognizance and the order for judicial interim release pursuant to which the recognizance was entered into are not otherwise affected.

EXPLANATION

Section 767.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the situation where a person acts as a substitute surety for an accused who is released on judicial interim release. The section outlines that if someone is substituted as a surety, the original surety is discharged of their responsibilities. However, this does not affect the recognizance or the order for judicial interim release entered into by the accused. The section is important because it allows for flexibility in the surety process and recognizes that circumstances can change. For example, a surety may become unable or unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities, and a substitute may be necessary. By allowing a substitute to take over, the original surety is relieved of their obligations but the accused remains bound by the terms of their release. This section also emphasizes the importance of honouring the commitments made when a person is released on judicial interim release. Recognizances are legally binding agreements, and it is essential that they are taken seriously. By maintaining the validity of the recognizance and the order for judicial interim release, the section serves as a deterrent to potential breaches. Overall, section 767.1(2) helps to ensure that accused persons can be released on judicial interim release in a way that is both flexible and accountable. It recognizes the need for substitutes in certain cases, while still holding accused persons to their commitments.

COMMENTARY

Section 767.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with the issue of sureties who are unable or unwilling to continue to act as sureties for an accused person who has been released from custody on a recognizance. Recognizances are legal agreements by which individuals undertake to do certain things, such as appearance in court, and thereby avoid being held in custody pending trial. A surety, in turn, is a person who agrees to act as a guarantor that the accused person will comply with the terms of the recognizance. The section states that if a person who has been acting as a surety under a recognizance is no longer able or willing to continue as the surety, they may be substituted by another person who signs the recognizance. This means that the original surety is discharged from their obligations under the recognizance, and the new surety takes over. However, the recognizance and the order for judicial interim release pursuant to which the recognizance was entered into remain in effect. The provision is intended to ensure that accused persons who have been released from custody on a recognizance are not left without a surety, and that the relevant authorities are able to hold someone responsible for the accused's compliance with the terms of the recognizance. This is important because recognizances are an important tool for managing the risks associated with releasing accused persons from custody pending trial. Accused persons who are considered to be at a high risk of failing to comply with the terms of their release, or who pose a threat to public safety, may be denied bail altogether. Section 767.1(2) also underscores the importance of the role of sureties in the criminal justice system. Sureties are often family members or friends of the accused person, and they have a responsibility to ensure that the accused complies with the terms of their release. This responsibility can be a substantial burden, as sureties are required to report any breaches of the recognizance to the authorities, and may be required to pay a significant financial penalty if the accused person fails to comply with the terms of the recognizance. Overall, section 767.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that helps ensure that accused persons who have been released from custody on a recognizance are not left without a surety. The provision also emphasizes the important role that sureties play in the criminal justice system, and the significant obligations that come with agreeing to act as a surety. By providing for the substitution of a surety when necessary, the provision helps ensure that the public is protected and that accused persons are able to participate meaningfully in the criminal justice process.

STRATEGY

Section 767.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada has significant implications for individuals who have agreed to act as a surety for a person who has been released on bail pending a trial. In many cases, the original surety may be unable to fulfill their obligations for a variety of reasons, including illness, financial hardship, or relocation. Under these circumstances, the Criminal Code allows for a substitution of the original surety with another individual, who may then be required to sign the recognizance as a condition of the accused's release. From a strategic perspective, there are several considerations that must be taken into account when dealing with this provision of the Criminal Code. One of the most important factors is the potential risk associated with acting as a surety. This includes the risk of financial loss if the accused fails to appear in court as required, as well as the risk of damage to one's reputation and personal relationships if the accused commits further criminal acts while on bail. As such, anyone who is considering acting as a surety should carefully assess the potential risks and benefits before agreeing to do so. Another important strategic consideration is the nature of the relationship between the original surety and the accused. In some cases, the original surety may have a close personal or family connection to the accused, which may make it difficult for them to continue acting in this role. In these situations, finding a replacement surety who has a similar connection to the accused may be beneficial, as it can help to maintain the accused's trust and support network during a difficult and stressful time. Finally, it is important to consider the logistics of the substitution process itself. In order for a new surety to be recognized by the court, they may need to provide a significant amount of information and documentation about themselves, including proof of residency, employment, and financial stability. They may also need to undergo a criminal record check and other background checks to ensure that they pose no threat to the safety of the accused or the community. As such, anyone who is considering serving as a substitute surety should be prepared to provide a significant amount of information and documentation, and should be willing to undergo any necessary checks or examinations. In terms of strategies that could be employed when dealing with Section 767.1(2), one key approach is to seek the advice and guidance of legal professionals. Lawyers who specialize in criminal law and bail proceedings can provide valuable insights and assistance in navigating the substitute surety process, including identifying potential candidates and assisting with the documentation and background checks required. Another possible strategy is to reach out to community leaders or organizations that may be able to provide support and guidance during this process, including religious leaders, social service organizations, or cultural associations. Ultimately, the most effective strategy will depend on the specific circumstances of each case, and will require careful consideration of the risks and benefits involved in serving as a substitute surety.