A frequent question we get is, “how much money am I going to need for bail?” Thankfully, the answer to that question is usually none. Unlike the United States, cash bail will only come up in a small percentage of cases – usually serious charges.

In the second part of our look at the trial judge’s charge to the jury we will discuss the substance of the charge. Specifically, how are decisions made about what defences or possible verdicts are explained to the jury.

The purpose of a jury charge is to educate the decision-maker so that it will make an informed decision. It is through the trial judge’s instructions that the jury must appreciate the value and effect of the evidence in the context of the legal issues.

In a jury trial the trial judge will provide instructions to the jury to assist them in performing their task. This will include general instructions at the beginning of the trial and a more thorough "charge" at the end of the case before they begin their deliberations.

In our look at issues in jury trials we started towards the end with closing submissions and particularly issues which can arise for the Crown. Today we move to the beginning of the trial and consider opening argument.

Jury trials present challenges for lawyers and judges alike. Lawyers have to consider the case from a different perspective than a judge alone trial, whereas judges will have to make sure that they respond to any issues which arise in a way that ensures a fair trial.

In our final look at issues from the Uncover Podcast we look at the fact that Mr. Assoun represented himself after he was unsatisfied with how his lawyer had cross-examined the Crown’s initial witness. The resulting conviction was entirely predictable at that point.

A number of the witnesses at Mr. Assoun’s trial had troubled pasts. Specifically his nephew had a lengthy criminal record. There was also a classic feature of wrongful conviction cases, a jailhouse informant who had received a discounted sentence for drug offences in exchange for his testimony.

An important piece of evidence the Crown relied on at trial was an admission Mr. Assoun was alleged to have made to Margaret Hartrick. Ms. Hartrick was a friend of the deceased. She gave statements to police in November, 1996 and August, 1998 and testified at the preliminary inquiry. Ms. Hartrick died before trial.

There are a variety of specific technical steps that need to be taken in obtaining a warrant. If any of these are overlooked that may open the door to a finding that the warrant was invalid. For the blog we will focus on challenging whether there were reasonable grounds for the warrant to issue as this is the most common challenge.

There are various provisions in statutes like the Criminal Code, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and other pieces of legislation that provide the power to issue search warrants. As we covered in the first post about warrants, the default standard is a system of prior authorization. The general framework then for the issuance of a search warrant is…

A frequent question criminal lawyers get is: “Do they need a search warrant to do that?” If the answer to that is yes then the next question is often, “What do they need to get a warrant?” After that is explained the follow up is often: “Can I do anything about it if they do?” We will tackle those questions one at a time in a series of posts.

One of the first things you learn in criminal law is that the law should only punish conduct that is voluntary. In other words, something someone was trying to do. You also learn pretty early that each offence has an actus reus (the action) and mens rea (intent) element.

Entrapment is a widely used, but commonly misunderstood, term. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently affirmed the longstanding test for entrapment initially outlined in R. v. Mack in 1988 and given guidance on how that test applies to undercover operations targeting dial-a-dope drug operations in R. v. Ahmad.

The presumption of innocence is the golden thread running through the Canadian Criminal Justice System. It is a fundamental principle of justice. As such, it is critical in any trial in which an accused person testifies that the analysis of the evidence follows an approach that respects the paramount importance of the presumption of innocence and does not transfer the onus of proof onto the accused. These principles apply even in traffic court trials.

One of our recent blog posts addressed mandatory minimum sentences. Researching that post lead to the discovery of the National Justice Survey 2017: Issues in Canada’s Criminal Justice System. A review of the survey is certainly recommended but a few highlights are worth noting.Firstly, on the topic of mandatory minimum sentences there was little public support for them. Only one in six Canadians believe that such an approach leads to fair and appropriate sentences.

Liberty is at the heart of a free and democratic society. In R. v. Le the Supreme Court of Canada excluded a firearm and drugs from evidence as a result of a breach of Mr. Le’s s. 9 Charter right to be free from arbitrary detention. This right is meant to protect individual liberty against unjustified state interference. A detention exists in situations where a reasonable person in the accused’s shoes would feel obligated to comply with a police direction or demand and that they are not free to leave. The case tackled a number of issues. The focus here will be on policing racial minorities.

A salacious headline caught my attention but the substance of the case ended up being much more noteworthy. In R. v. Koenig the Provincial Court found the mandatory minimum sentence for the offence of child luring unconstitutional resulting in the youthful accused being sentenced to a conditional sentence order rather than a jail sentence. Having argued constitutional challenges to mandatory minimum sentences previously, this case falls in line with so many others in recent years.