Criminal Code of Canada - section 670 - Judgment not to be stayed on certain grounds

section 670

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Judgment cannot be reversed due to irregularities in the jury selection process.

SECTION WORDING

670 Judgment shall not be stayed or reversed after verdict on an indictment (a) by reason of any irregularity in the summoning or empanelling of the jury; or (b) for the reason that a person who served on the jury was not returned as a juror by a sheriff or other officer.

EXPLANATION

Section 670 of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that deals with the finality of verdicts on indictments. It essentially states that a judgment on an indictment cannot be stayed or reversed after the verdict has been delivered on two grounds. Firstly, the section specifies that a judgment cannot be stayed or reversed due to any irregularity in the summoning or empanelling of the jury. This means that minor irregularities in the jury selection process, such as errors in the notice of summoning or the empanelling of the jury, cannot be used to challenge the verdict on the indictment. This provision ensures that verdicts are not overturned on technicalities that do not affect the fairness of the trial. Secondly, the section states that a judgment cannot be stayed or reversed because a person who served on the jury was not returned as a juror by a sheriff or other officer. This provision is meant to protect the integrity of the jury system by ensuring that the verdict is not invalidated because of an administrative error in the selection process. Overall, section 670 of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that upholds the finality of verdicts on indictments and ensures that they are not overturned on minor irregularities or administrative errors in the jury selection process.

COMMENTARY

Section 670 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the circumstances under which a verdict on an indictment cannot be stayed or reversed. This section states that a verdict cannot be challenged due to any irregularity in the summoning or empanelling of the jury, or on the basis that a person who served on the jury was not returned as a juror by a sheriff or other officer. The purpose of this section is to ensure that verdicts are not overturned due to minor flaws in jury selection or other administrative procedures. These flaws, while potentially important, do not necessarily undermine the fairness or integrity of the trial process as a whole. This section of the Criminal Code acknowledges this fact by providing a measure of finality to jury verdicts once they have been reached. It is important to note, however, that Section 670 does not provide complete immunity to jury verdicts. Verdicts can still be challenged on other grounds, such as breaches of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, errors in evidentiary procedures, or other legal defects. Therefore, while Section 670 provides some protection to verdicts, it also ensures that trials are subject to ongoing scrutiny to ensure that they adhere to the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. One potential criticism of Section 670 is that it may lead to the dismissal of legitimate concerns about jury selection or other administrative issues. If courts are too quick to dismiss challenges based on technicalities, then the integrity of the trial process could be called into question. Furthermore, if jurors are chosen haphazardly or without proper checks and balances, then it is possible that the quality of verdicts may be affected. Therefore, while Section 670 is an important provision, it should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of all aspects of the jury selection process. In terms of legal precedent, Section 670 has been the subject of numerous court challenges over the years. Some defence lawyers have argued that this section violates the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, courts have consistently ruled that Section 670 is a reasonable limitation on this right, given the need to ensure finality in criminal proceedings and to prevent vexatious challenges to verdicts. Overall, Section 670 of the Criminal Code of Canada plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system. While it may limit some forms of legal challenge, it also provides clear boundaries for when verdicts can and cannot be challenged. By ensuring that the trial process is subject to ongoing scrutiny and accountability, Section 670 helps to ensure that justice is served in accordance with the rule of law.

STRATEGY

Section 670 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which deals with the issue of a judgment not being stayed or reversed after verdict on an indictment, provides several strategic considerations for defense counsel during a criminal trial. In essence, it means that once a verdict is reached, there are few avenues for defense counsel to challenge it on the grounds of jury irregularities or omissions. Therefore, it is important for defense counsel to devise strategies that can help navigate this provision and ensure that their client's rights are protected throughout the trial. One strategy that defense counsel may employ is to challenge the jury selection process. Although the Code states that the verdict cannot be reversed by reason of any irregularity in the summoning or empanelling of the jury, there may be instances of serious misconduct or bias that the defense can use to demonstrate that they did not receive a fair trial. For instance, if it can be demonstrated that the sheriff or other officer showed bias in the selection of jurors or failed to follow procedures correctly, the defense may be able to use this evidence to appeal the verdict. In addition, defense counsel may challenge the composition of the jury, arguing that it is not representative of a cross-section of society or that certain groups are underrepresented. Another strategy that defense counsel may employ is to argue for a mistrial. Mistrials typically occur when there is a serious procedural error that prejudiced the trial's outcome or when the jury cannot reach a verdict. Defense counsel may argue that the jury was given improper instructions, evidence was improperly admitted, or that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, leading to an unfair trial. These arguments could carry weight in instances where the defendant's rights were infringed, and the judge may rule that a new trial is necessary. Another possible strategy is to focus on challenging the evidence presented by the prosecution. If the evidence is circumstantial or relies on questionable testimony, defense counsel may argue that the jury could not reasonably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, defense counsel may seek to exclude certain pieces of evidence if they were improperly obtained or if they infringe on the defendant's Charter rights. Finally, it is essential for defense counsel to be familiar with the rules of evidence, so they can successfully argue their case before the judge. Counsel must understand the various legal tests used to determine the admissibility of evidence and know how to raise objections effectively. They must also understand the rights of the accused and use these rights strategically to prevent evidence from being admitted. In conclusion, section 670 of the Criminal Code of Canada presents a challenging legal hurdle for defense counsel in criminal trials. Nonetheless, there are strategies that they can use when dealing with this section, such as challenging jury selection, arguing for a mistrial, challenging evidence presented by the prosecution, and understanding the rules of evidence. These strategies can be employed tactically to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial and that their rights are protected. Ultimately, the success of any approach will depend on the specific facts of the case, the skill of counsel, and their ability to present a compelling case before the court.