INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A conviction or acquittal for a certain type of homicide bars a subsequent indictment for the same homicide with a different type of charge.

SECTION WORDING

610(2) A conviction or an acquittal on an indictment for murder bars a subsequent indictment for the same homicide charging it as manslaughter or infanticide, and a conviction or acquittal on an indictment for manslaughter or infanticide bars a subsequent indictment for the same homicide charging it as murder.

EXPLANATION

Section 610(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that governs the prosecution of homicide offences. It stipulates that if a person is convicted or acquitted of murder for a certain homicide, they cannot face a subsequent indictment for the same homicide that charges them with manslaughter or infanticide, and vice versa. The provision is meant to prevent a person from being subjected to multiple trials for the same criminal act. The section is based on the legal principle of double jeopardy, which safeguards an individual from being tried for the same offence twice. Double jeopardy is a fundamental human right that protects the accused from the harassment of multiple prosecutions and guarantees the finality of a previous trial. The principle is recognized by many legal systems across the world, including Canada's. Section 610(2) operates as a bar to subsequent indictments for the same homicide, regardless of whether the prosecution initially charges the accused with murder, manslaughter, or infanticide. This means that once a trial for one of these offences is concluded, the accused cannot be tried again for any other offence related to the same homicide. However, the section allows for separate trials if the accused is charged with multiple homicides. In conclusion, Section 610(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that protects the right of an accused to not be tried twice for the same criminal act. It ensures that the prosecution does not harass an individual with multiple trials that may result in double punishment for the same offence. The section is an essential safeguard for the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system.

COMMENTARY

Section 610(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada lays down a fundamental principle of Canadian criminal law, the principle of double jeopardy. The principle of double jeopardy states that a person cannot be charged or punished twice for the same offence, which applies to all criminal prosecutions in Canada. The section specifically refers to the crime of homicide, which is a very serious offence that involves taking the life of another person. Homicide can be classified into three categories in Canada, depending on the level of intent and circumstances surrounding the crime: murder, manslaughter, and infanticide. Murder is the most serious form of homicide and carries a mandatory life imprisonment sentence if the accused is found guilty. In contrast, manslaughter is a less serious form of homicide, as it does not require the intention to kill, and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Section 610(2) deals specifically with situations where a person has been acquitted or convicted of a particular form of homicide, and then subsequently charged with a different form of homicide for the same death. The section states that if a person has been acquitted or convicted of murder, they cannot be subsequently charged with manslaughter or infanticide for the same death. Similarly, if they have been acquitted or convicted of manslaughter or infanticide, they cannot be subsequently charged with murder for the same death. The purpose of section 610(2) is to protect individuals from being subjected to multiple criminal proceedings and punishments for the same act. This principle is based on the idea that it is unjust and oppressive to prosecute or punish a person twice for the same offence. Moreover, the principle of double jeopardy also promotes efficiency in the criminal justice system by avoiding unnecessary duplication of legal proceedings. However, it is worth noting that there are exceptions to the principle of double jeopardy in Canadian law. One exception is when new evidence emerges that was not available during the original trial or appeal. In such cases, the Crown may seek to reopen the case by bringing new charges. Another exception is when the original trial was fundamentally flawed, such as cases where there was a serious error in the trial process or where the verdict was based on tainted evidence. Overall, section 610(2) of the Criminal Code plays a crucial role in protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that the criminal justice system operates fairly and efficiently. It reflects the fundamental principle of double jeopardy, which is a cornerstone of Canadian law.

STRATEGY

Section 610(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that a conviction or acquittal on a murder charge bars any subsequent indictment for the same homicide on a charge of manslaughter or infanticide. Similarly, a conviction or acquittal on a manslaughter or infanticide charge bars any subsequent indictment for the same homicide on a charge of murder. This section of the Criminal Code is significant as it limits the Crown's ability to pursue charges based on different, but related offences, in homicide cases. When dealing with Section 610(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that must be taken into account. For example, if the Crown pursues a charge of murder in a homicide case and fails to obtain a conviction, they cannot subsequently charge the accused with manslaughter or infanticide for the same homicide. Therefore, the Crown must carefully weigh the likelihood of obtaining a conviction on a murder charge before proceeding with such a charge. One strategy that could be employed by the Crown is to charge an accused with manslaughter or infanticide in the first instance, leaving the option to upgrade the charge to murder if additional evidence emerges. This approach allows the Crown to maintain the ability to pursue a murder charge if the evidence supports it, while mitigating the risk of being barred from pursuing a murder charge at a later stage. On the other hand, a defence lawyer may choose to pursue a defence strategy that involves influencing the Crown's choice of charge. For example, a defence lawyer may present arguments or evidence that suggests the homicide should be charged as manslaughter rather than murder. This approach would seek to limit the Crown's ability to upgrade the charge to murder at a later stage. Another strategic consideration when dealing with Section 610(2) of the Criminal Code is how the outcome of the trial may impact any related civil proceedings, such as civil suits brought by the victim's family. In such cases, the Crown and defence lawyers must consider whether pursuing certain charges will have a negative impact on any related civil proceedings. Overall, Section 610(2) of the Criminal Code is a key consideration in any homicide case, as it can limit the Crown's ability to pursue different offences in relation to the same homicide. Prosecutors and defence lawyers must carefully consider the strategic implications of this section when making charging decisions and presenting their cases in court.