Criminal Code of Canada - section 55 - Evidence of overt acts

section 55

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

No evidence of an overt act is admissible unless it is set out in the indictment or is otherwise relevant as tending to prove an overt act that is set out therein in proceedings for an offence against any provision in sections 47 or 49 to 53.

SECTION WORDING

55. In proceedings for an offence against any provision in section 47 or sections 49 to 53, no evidence is admissible of an overt act unless that overt act is set out in the indictment or unless the evidence is otherwise relevant as tending to prove an overt act that is set out therein.

EXPLANATION

Section 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the rules for admissibility of evidence in proceedings for offenses against certain provisions of the Code. Specifically, in cases involving offenses under section 47 or sections 49 to 53, evidentiary rules are established that limit the evidence that may be presented at trial. Under this section, no evidence is admissible of an overt act unless that act is set out in the indictment. This means that if the prosecution wishes to introduce evidence of a particular act, it must first include that act in the indictment or charging document. This requirement serves to ensure that the defendant is aware of all the specific acts that form the basis of the charge, and also to prevent surprise evidence from being introduced at trial. However, even if an overt act is not set out in the indictment, evidence may still be admissible if it is otherwise relevant as tending to prove an overt act that is set out therein. This means that if there is other evidence that indirectly supports or sheds light on an act that is listed in the indictment, that evidence may still be presented. Overall, Section 55 sets out a specific procedural rule for certain cases involving the Criminal Code of Canada. It is designed to balance the need for the prosecution to present relevant evidence with the need to ensure that the defendant has notice of all the specific acts that are being charged.

COMMENTARY

Section 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that imposes a very specific limitation on the admissibility of evidence in certain criminal proceedings. Essentially, this provision states that in proceedings for an offence against any provision in section 47 or sections 49 to 53, no evidence of an overt act is admissible unless that overt act is set out in the indictment. If the evidence is not set out in the indictment, it can only be admitted if it is otherwise relevant as tending to prove an overt act that is set out therein. The purpose of this provision is to protect the accused from being surprised by evidence that they were not given notice of in the indictment. The indictment serves as a communication tool between the prosecution and the accused, notifying the accused of the nature and particulars of the charges against them. If evidence of an overt act that is not set out in the indictment is admitted, the accused may be unable to effectively respond to that evidence, as they may not have anticipated it. This provision is specifically limited to offences against provisions in section 47 or sections 49 to 53. Section 47 deals with the offence of piracy, while sections 49 to 53 deal with the offences of inciting or participating in mutiny, seditious offences, and intimidating Parliament or a legislative body. These types of offences are all of a very serious nature and often involve complex and detailed factual scenarios. The provision also specifically deals with the admissibility of evidence of overt acts. An overt act is an act that is committed with the intention of carrying out a particular illegal objective. In the context of these offences, an overt act could be something like taking a specific action that contributes to the commission of the offence, or making a statement that encourages others to commit the offence. By limiting the admissibility of evidence of overt acts, this provision ensures that the prosecution can only rely on evidence that directly relates to the facts alleged in the indictment. There are some exceptions to the limitation on the admissibility of evidence of overt acts. Evidence of an overt act that is not set out in the indictment can be admitted if it is otherwise relevant as tending to prove an overt act that is set out therein. For example, if the indictment alleges that the accused committed a specific overt act, evidence of a different overt act that tends to demonstrate the accused's intent or motive for committing the overt act that is alleged in the indictment may be admissible. Overall, section 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that serves to protect the rights of the accused in certain serious criminal proceedings. By limiting the admissibility of evidence of overt acts to those that are set out in the indictment, this provision ensures that the accused can prepare an effective defence and be fully informed of the case against them. However, the exceptions to this limitation ensure that the prosecution can still introduce relevant evidence that tends to prove the accused's guilt.

STRATEGY

Section 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a highly technical and specific provision that can significantly impact the way criminal trials proceed. In essence, the section bars the admission of evidence related to overt acts unless they are specifically set out in the indictment or are otherwise relevant to proving an overt act in the indictment. This provision requires careful strategic consideration on the part of both the prosecution and defence, as it can significantly impact the strength of the case. For the prosecution, one strategy to employ when dealing with section 55 is to carefully draft the indictment to include specific overt acts that are supported by strong evidence. This approach ensures that evidence related to those overt acts will be admissible, making it easier to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the prosecution can use pre-trial disclosure to provide the defence with full details of the evidence that will be relied on at trial. Such disclosure may prompt defence counsel to enter into a plea deal to avoid going to trial. For the defence, section 55 presents an opportunity to challenge the admissibility of evidence. If the prosecution has failed to set out an overt act in the indictment, or if the evidence is not relevant to proving an overt act in the indictment, the defence may file a motion to have the evidence excluded. This strategy can be particularly effective if the evidence in question is prejudicial or unreliable. Additionally, defence counsel can use section 55 as a bargaining chip to negotiate a plea deal with the prosecution. Overall, section 55 requires the prosecution and defence to carefully consider the overt acts that are included in the indictment and the evidence related to those acts. The prosecution must ensure that the overt acts are supported by strong evidence, while the defence must carefully scrutinize the evidence to determine if it is admissible under section 55. Both sides must be aware of the potential impact of this provision on the strength of their case and adjust their strategies accordingly. By doing so, they can increase their chances of success in the courtroom.