INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
The presiding judge must rule on objections or issues related to the refusal to answer a question or produce evidence.
SECTION WORDING
83.28(9) The presiding judge shall rule on any objection or other issue relating to a refusal to answer a question or to produce a thing.
EXPLANATION
Section 83.28(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the issue of refusing to answer a question or produce evidence related to an investigation or trial under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The section implies that if there is any dispute or objection related to the refusal to answer a question or produce evidence, the presiding judge shall make a ruling. This section is crucial because it means that the presiding judge has the ultimate authority to decide whether a witness' refusal to answer a question or produce a piece of evidence is justified. This provision underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny in determining the admissibility of evidence in terrorism investigations and trials. It is important to note that giving evidence or responding to questions can potentially compromise a witness' safety or reveal sensitive information that could lead to harm. For instance, disclosing the identity of a confidential informant or revealing classified or confidential information could put individuals or national security at risk. Therefore, witnesses may refuse to answer questions or produce evidence if they believe that doing so could cause harm. However, witnesses must also provide compelling reasons that justify their refusal to answer questions or provide evidence. They must show that their refusal is based on legitimate and compelling grounds such as privilege, self-incrimination, or security concerns. The presiding judge is tasked with evaluating the legitimacy of these grounds and determining whether the witness should be excused from answering the question. Overall, Section 83.28(9) serves to uphold the principles of fairness and justice in terrorism investigations and trials by ensuring that the presiding judge has the final say on any objections or issues related to a witness' refusal to answer questions or produce evidence.
COMMENTARY
Section 83.28(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada grants the presiding judge with the authority to rule on any issue arising due to the refusal to answer a question or produce a thing. The provision imposes an obligation on individuals to answer questions and provide required information during criminal proceedings. However, in some situations, individuals may decline to answer questions or produce information, which may occur due to various reasons such as fear of self-incrimination, invasion of privacy, or protection of privileged information. This section's purpose is to ensure that the presiding judge has the authority to decide upon the validity of an individual's refusal to answer questions or provide information. By providing this authority, the presiding judge becomes responsible for ensuring the fair and just proceedings of the case. It also ensures that individuals are not coerced into incriminating themselves by answering potentially self-incriminating questions. The provision grants the presiding judge with the discretion to determine the validity of an individual's refusal to answer questions or provide information. However, this discretion must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution and the law. The presiding judge must ensure that the individual's Charter rights are not infringed upon. Section 83.28(9) plays a crucial role in the Canadian criminal justice system, specifically in terrorism-related cases. Terrorism is a severe threat to national security and often requires stringent measures to ensure the safety of the general public. In such cases, individuals may be questioned about their activities and information pertaining to the terrorist plot. However, due to security concerns, individuals may refuse to answer the questions posed by the prosecution. In these cases, the presiding judge's discretion is crucial in ensuring that justice is served while protecting the individual's rights. Overall, Section 83.28(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a crucial role in the Canadian criminal justice system. It ensures that the presiding judge has the authority to make decisions regarding an individual's refusal to answer questions or provide information while ensuring that an individual's Charter rights are not infringed upon. The provision is particularly important in terrorist-related cases, where national security concerns may require stringent measures to ensure public safety. It ensures that justice is served while considering an individual's rights and privacy.
STRATEGY
Section 83.28(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a vital role in criminal proceedings. This section is significant because it empowers the presiding judge to rule on any objections or issues related to a refusal to answer a question or to produce a thing. In other words, if a witness or a defendant refuses to provide evidence or answer questions, the presiding judge has the authority to decide whether to compel them to do so or not. One of the most critical strategic considerations when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada is to understand the circumstances under which a witness or defendant can refuse to answer a question or produce a thing. It is important to note that the Canadian Constitution guarantees certain rights and freedoms, including the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself. Therefore, if a question or a request for evidence would violate these rights and freedoms, the witness or defendant can refuse to provide the information. However, if the witness or defendant refuses to provide evidence or answer questions on some other ground, such as a fear of reprisal or a concern for privacy, the presiding judge may rule that the refusal is unjustified. In this case, the judge may order the witness or defendant to provide the information or face consequences such as contempt of court charges. Another important strategic consideration is to weigh the potential benefits and risks of refusing to provide evidence or answer questions. Sometimes it may be in the person's best interest not to provide the information, even if it could theoretically help their case. For example, if the information could incriminate them or expose them to other forms of legal jeopardy, it may be wise to refuse to provide it. However, there may be downsides to refusing to provide evidence or answer questions as well. For example, it could harm the person's credibility in the eyes of the judge or jury, or it could make them look guilty or uncooperative. Additionally, there may be legal consequences for refusing to comply with a court order to provide evidence or answer questions. There are several strategies that could be employed when dealing with Section 83.28(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada. One of the most important is to consult with a lawyer or legal professional who has experience dealing with these issues. They can provide guidance on the best course of action and help the person navigate the legal process. Another strategy is to carefully consider the implications of providing evidence or answering questions versus refusing to do so. The person should weigh the potential benefits and risks and make an informed decision based on their individual circumstances. Additionally, the person may want to work with their legal team to try to negotiate a compromise with the prosecution or other parties involved in the case. For example, they may agree to provide some information but not others, or they may request certain protections or guarantees in exchange for providing the information. In conclusion, Section 83.28(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that gives the presiding judge the power to rule on objections or issues related to a refusal to answer questions or provide evidence. Strategic considerations when dealing with this provision include understanding the circumstances under which a refusal is permissible, weighing the potential benefits and risks of providing evidence or refusing to do so, and working with legal professionals to develop a sound strategy for handling the situation.