INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section outlines the potential outcomes when the defendant pleads guilty or fails to provide sufficient cause against an order.
801(2) Where the defendant pleads guilty or does not show sufficient cause why an order should not be made against him, as the case may be, the summary conviction court shall convict the defendant, discharge the defendant under section 730 or make an order against the defendant accordingly.
Section 801(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the outcome of a criminal case when the defendant either pleads guilty or fails to show sufficient cause as to why they should not be convicted or suffer a penalty. Essentially, this section outlines what the summary conviction court should do in such a scenario. A summary conviction court is essentially a lower court that deals with less serious criminal offenses, the punishment for which may be less severe. When a defendant appears before such a court and either pleads guilty or fails to provide sufficient reason why they should not be convicted, section 801(2) instructs the court to take certain actions. If a defendant pleads guilty, the summary conviction court is obliged to convict them as per the Criminal Code. This means that the court must enter a formal and official finding of guilt against the defendant. Alternatively, if the defendant does not show sufficient cause as to why they should not be convicted, the summary conviction court must make an order against them according to the Criminal Code. This could mean a fine, imprisonment, probation, or any other type of penalty allowed by law. However, there is one other option available to the court as per section 801(2). If the court feels that the defendant ought to be discharged rather than penalized, they may discharge them under section 730. This means that the defendant is essentially released and not subject to any formal penalty. Overall, section 801(2) serves to ensure that the summary conviction court takes appropriate action when a defendant either admits guilt or fails to defend themselves against the charges brought against them. The section helps to ensure that justice is served efficiently and effectively within the Canadian criminal justice system.
Section 801(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the procedure that must be followed by a summary conviction court when a defendant pleads guilty or does not provide sufficient reason as to why an order should not be made against them. This provision is significant in the Canadian criminal justice system as it ensures that a fair and efficient process is followed for cases that do not require a trial. The provision stipulates that when a defendant pleads guilty, the summary conviction court must convict the defendant. This is a crucial step in ensuring that justice is served as the defendant has admitted to committing the offense. By convicting the defendant, the court recognizes the wrongdoing, and the defendant is held accountable for their actions. Further, the provision allows for the possible discharge of the defendant under section 730. Discharging a defendant means that they are released from any further punishment or consequences for the offense they committed. This is only possible if the judge deems that the defendant is unlikely to reoffend, and that a discharge would be appropriate given the circumstances of the case. If discharged, the defendant would not have a criminal record, making it easier for them to secure employment and move on from the offense. Finally, the provision authorizes the summary conviction court to make an order against the defendant. The type of order that can be made depends on the nature of the offense and can range from a fine to a conditional sentence. Such orders are designed to ensure that the defendant is held accountable for their actions and that there is a sufficient deterrent for others who may be considering committing similar offenses. It is crucial to note that the provision requires that the summary conviction court must ensure that the defendant has had sufficient opportunity to present their case. If the defendant fails to show sufficient cause as to why an order should not be made against them, this is usually because they have not offered satisfactory evidence or arguments to contest the charges. The court must ensure that the defendant has been made aware of their rights, that they have had access to legal counsel, and that the legal process has been conducted fairly. In conclusion, section 801(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a crucial role in ensuring a fair and efficient process for cases that do not require a trial. It ensures that defendants who plead guilty are held accountable for their actions, while also providing for the potential discharge of the defendant or the imposition of appropriate orders. By following this process, the criminal justice system can maintain public trust, safeguard the rights of defendants and ensure that justice is served.
Section 801(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada lays down the procedure for the conviction, discharge, or order against a defendant who pleads guilty or does not show sufficient cause why an order should not be made against him. This particular section of the Criminal Code holds significant weightage in the Canada's legal system as it is used frequently in numerous criminal cases. As a result, lawyers play a key role in dealing with this section, and they must consider several strategic implications before entering a plea for their clients. In this paper, we will discuss some of these strategic implications and possible strategies that could be employed when dealing with Section 801(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Firstly, the lawyer must consider the nature and severity of the offense committed by their client. The Criminal Code of Canada has a set of guidelines that outline sentencing rules, depending on the nature of the offense. Therefore, an experienced lawyer must analyze the situation keeping in mind all the details of the case. A minor offense can be remedied by requesting a discharge or a lenient sentence, while a severe offense might require the lawyer to negotiate a plea deal with the prosecutor or challenge the validity of the evidence. Secondly, it is imperative that the lawyers examine the strength of the prosecution's evidence against the defendant. If the prosecution's evidence is overwhelming, the defendant's plea of guilty or no defense might be the best strategy to employ. Pleading guilty, in this case, may lead to a lesser sentence or reduce the severity of charges. Furthermore, if the evidence is weak, the defense can challenge it and request an acquittal for their client. Thirdly, the lawyer must consider the impact of the conviction on their client's life. The conviction may have severe consequences, such as loss of employment, damage to reputation, or loss of custody of children. Therefore, it is essential to determine the impact that the conviction would have on the defendant's life, and implement the best strategy accordingly. The lawyer may suggest a plea deal that results in a non-criminal outcome, such as diversion, so that it does not show up as a criminal conviction on their client's record. Fourthly, the lawyer must consider the cost-benefit ratio of pleading guilty or a no defense plea. This strategy can help to mitigate the costs of a prolonged trial and prevent further legal expenses. A guilty plea may also be strategic if it prevents further legal expenses due to an appeal or mistrial. Finally, the lawyer should look at the likelihood of success at trial. There may be instances where the evidence is weak, or there are problems with the prosecution's case. In such cases, the defense can enter a plea of no defense, forcing the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This strategy could result in an acquittal or a lesser sentence. To summarize, Section 801(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a vital component of the Canadian legal system. Lawyers have to take into account several strategic factors before serving their clients in a criminal trial. The evidence, the nature and severity of the offense, the impact of the conviction on their client's life, and the cost-benefit ratio should all be considered to determine the best possible course of action in upholding their client's interests. Ultimately, the most successful approach will depend on each individual case's specific circumstances and the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence in a given situation.