Criminal Code of Canada - section 770(4)

section 770(4)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section concerns the deposit of money as security for the performance of a condition of a recognizance in criminal proceedings and where the money should be sent if there is a default.

SECTION WORDING

770(4) Where, in proceedings to which this section applies, the principal or surety has deposited money as security for the performance of a condition of a recognizance, that money shall be sent to the clerk of the court with the defaulted recognizance, to be dealt with in accordance with this Part.

EXPLANATION

Section 770(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that outlines the procedure for depositing money as security for the performance of a condition of a recognizance. Recognizance is a legal term used in Canada to describe a formal agreement made between an accused person and the court, usually in criminal proceedings. It is a promise to appear in court and abide by certain conditions, such as a curfew or prohibition from contacting certain individuals, in exchange for release from detention. If a principal or surety deposits money as security for the performance of a condition of a recognizance, and the accused person fails to comply with the condition, the defaulted recognizance is sent to the clerk of the court. The deposited money then becomes part of the proceedings and is dealt with in accordance with Part XXVII of the Criminal Code of Canada. Part XXVII of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the procedures for forfeiture of proceeds of crime, including property, assets, or money obtained through unlawful activity. The money deposited as security for the performance of the condition of the recognizance may be forfeited if the accused person fails to comply with the condition. This means that the money may become the property of the Crown, and the principal or surety who deposited the money may lose the amount they deposited. Overall, Section 770(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that ensures accountability and compliance with the conditions of a recognizance, while also providing a mechanism for forfeiture of proceeds of crime. The provision serves as a deterrent against non-compliance with the conditions of a recognizance and helps to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system.

COMMENTARY

Section 770(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the deposit of money as security for the performance of a condition of a recognizance. A recognizance is a legal agreement that a person enters into with a court or a judge, requiring them to fulfill certain conditions in exchange for being released from police custody or some other type of detention. Recognizances are common in criminal proceedings, where they are used to ensure that the accused appears before the court at a later date, to ensure that they do not commit any further offenses while they are out on bail, and to ensure that they comply with any other conditions ordered by the court. When a person enters into a recognizance, they may be required to provide a financial deposit or some other form of security as a guarantee that they will comply with the conditions of the agreement. If the person subsequently fails to comply with the conditions of the recognizance, the deposit can be forfeited to the court. This is where section 770(4) comes into play. Under this section, if a person has deposited money as security for the performance of a condition of a recognizance, and then defaults on that recognizance, the money must be sent to the clerk of the court along with the defaulted recognizance. The clerk of the court is then responsible for dealing with the money in accordance with Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, which deals with certain procedures related to the disposition of property forfeited to the Crown. The purpose of this section is to ensure that any money deposited as security for a recognizance is returned to the court in the event of a default, so that it can be dealt with appropriately. This is important for several reasons. First, it ensures that the Crown is not deprived of any property or funds that may be used to satisfy fines, restitution orders, or other penalties that may be imposed on the accused. Second, it ensures that the court has the resources it needs to enforce its decisions and to ensure that the accused complies with all court orders. Overall, section 770(4) of the Criminal Code is an important provision that helps to ensure that the proper procedures are followed in disposing of property deposited as security for recognizances. It serves to protect the interests of the Crown and the courts, while also ensuring that accused individuals are held accountable for their actions and responsibilities.

STRATEGY

Section 770(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the situation where a principal or surety has deposited money as security for the performance of a condition of a recognizance, but defaults on that condition. In such a case, the money deposited as security is sent to the clerk of the court, to be dealt with in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that must be taken into account. These include: 1. The amount of money involved: It is important to determine the amount of money that has been deposited as security, and whether it is significant enough to warrant pursuing forfeiture proceedings. In some cases, the amount may be relatively small, and it may not be worth the time and effort to pursue forfeiture. 2. The strength of the case: Before pursuing forfeiture proceedings, it is important to assess the strength of the underlying criminal case. If the case against the accused is weak, it may be difficult to obtain a forfeiture order, and the effort and resources expended in pursuing forfeiture may be wasted. 3. The likelihood of recovery: Even if a forfeiture order is obtained, it may be difficult to recover the money that has been forfeited. For example, if the accused has no assets or is in bankruptcy, it may be impossible to recover the forfeited funds. 4. Public relations considerations: Pursuing forfeiture proceedings can be seen as heavy-handed by some members of the public. It is important to consider the public relations implications of pursuing forfeiture, particularly if the amount of money involved is relatively small. There are several strategies that can be employed when dealing with section 770(4) of the Criminal Code. These include: 1. Negotiating a settlement: If the amount of money involved is relatively small, and the accused cannot afford to forfeit the funds, it may be possible to reach a settlement whereby the funds are returned in exchange for the accused agreeing to certain conditions (such as attending counselling or staying out of trouble). 2. Pursuing forfeiture: If the offence is serious, and the accused has significant assets, it may be appropriate to pursue forfeiture proceedings to recover the funds that have been deposited as security. 3. Seeking a variation of the condition: In some cases, it may be possible to seek a variation of the condition that has been breached, rather than pursuing forfeiture. For example, if the accused has breached a condition requiring them to attend a certain program, it may be possible to seek a variation of the condition that would allow the accused to attend a different program. 4. Withdrawing the charges: In some cases, it may be appropriate to withdraw the charges against the accused, particularly if the amount of money involved is relatively small and pursuing forfeiture would not be in the public interest. Overall, when dealing with section 770(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is important to carefully assess the circumstances of each case, and to consider the various strategic options available. By carefully considering these factors, it may be possible to effectively manage the situation and achieve the desired outcome.