Another case summary for Canlii Connects. The case dealt with issues of party liability and the scope of a re-trial. The facts are yet another reminder of why it is in an accused’s best interests to exercise their right to silence when arrested or detained.

On the facts of the case however, she found that not only was there no evidence of motive to fabricate or animus, but that it was contrary to the interests of the complainant and her mother to come forward, and the fact that they did demonstrated how the complainant had no motive to fabricate. The trial judge used that finding as a make-weight to enhance the complainant’s credibility.

There were three errors in the trial judge’s approach.

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.

Potentially discriminatory predictive policing has been in the news recently leading some to express concerns that such methods disproportionately target marginalized communities. Any aspect of the justice system that has the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities is of obvious concern.

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.

I have recently been listening to the CBC podcast Uncovered and am using Season 7 as an inspiration for the next few blog posts. This most recent season looks at the wrongful conviction of Glen Assoun. Mr. Assoun was convicted of murdering his girlfriend and spent 17 years in jail.

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.