INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section outlines the circumstances in which the Attorney General or instructed counsel may appeal a judgment or verdict of acquittal, an order quashing an indictment, or a sentence passed by a trial court in proceedings by indictment.
SECTION WORDING
676(1) The Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for the purpose may appeal to the court of appeal (a) against a judgment or verdict of acquittal or a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of a trial court in proceedings by indictment on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone; (b) against an order of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction that quashes an indictment or in any manner refuses or fails to exercise jurisdiction on an indictment; (c) against an order of a trial court that stays proceedings on an indictment or quashes an indictment; or (d) with leave of the court of appeal or a judge thereof, against the sentence passed by a trial court in proceedings by indictment, unless that sentence is one fixed by law.
EXPLANATION
Section 676(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the circumstances in which an appeal may be made to the court of appeal. Appeals can be made against verdicts of acquittal or not criminally responsible due to mental disorder in proceedings by indictment on the basis of a question of law. The section also allows for appeals against indictment quashing or orders of a superior court that fail to exercise jurisdiction over an indictment or stay proceedings. Additionally, with leave of the court of appeal or a judge, appeals can be made against the sentence passed in proceedings by indictment, except where the sentence is fixed by law. This section grants the Attorney General or instructed counsel the power to appeal these judgments, verdicts, orders, or sentences. Overall, this section emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the interests of the state and ensuring that justice is served. It allows for higher courts to review and potentially overturn decisions made at lower levels in criminal proceedings, thereby promoting accountability and fairness in the criminal justice system. However, the section also provides for certain limitations on appeals, such as the requirement for questions of law to be at issue, and for the sentence to not be one fixed by law.
COMMENTARY
Section 676(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada sets out the grounds on which an appeal can be made to the court of appeal against a judgment or verdict of acquittal, not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, an order quashing or refusing to exercise jurisdiction on an indictment, an order staying the proceedings on an indictment or quashing an indictment, or a sentence passed by a trial court in proceedings by indictment (with leave of the court of appeal or a judge thereof). The purpose of this section is to ensure that the administration of justice is fair and just. It allows the Attorney General or instructed counsel to appeal judgments or verdicts that they believe were incorrect, or orders that they believe were made in error, and seek to have them overturned or corrected. This mechanism is essential in ensuring that the courts are able to correct errors made in the trial process and to maintain public confidence in the justice system. One of the key features of section 676(1) is that an appeal can be made on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone. This means that if a trial judge made an error of law during the trial, such as interpreting a statute incorrectly or applying the wrong legal test, an appeal can be made on that ground. This provision is important because it ensures that legal errors are corrected, and that the law is being applied correctly in the administration of justice. The ability to appeal a judgment or verdict of acquittal or a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is particularly important in cases where the public may have concerns about the outcome of such verdicts. These appeals serve to reassure the public that justice is being served and that decisions are made based on the facts and the law. Section 676(1) also allows for an appeal against an order of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction that quashes an indictment or refuses or fails to exercise jurisdiction on an indictment. This provision ensures that the Crown has the ability to challenge decisions that may have been made in error or that could have significant consequences for the administration of justice. The provision for appeals against orders made by a trial court that stays proceedings on an indictment or quashes an indictment is important because these decisions can have significant consequences for both the accused and the victim. In cases where a stay of proceedings was granted in error or where the indictment was quashed based on an incorrect application of the law, an appeal can be made to correct the error and ensure that the trial proceeds fairly. Finally, the provision allowing for an appeal against the sentence passed by a trial court ensures that the Crown has the ability to challenge sentences that are too lenient or that do not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. This provision is important in ensuring that the public's expectation of the punishment fitting the crime is met. In conclusion, section 676(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an essential provision in ensuring that the administration of justice is fair and just. By providing avenues for appeal on various grounds and against various decisions, it serves to correct errors made in the trial process, to ensure that the law is being applied correctly, and to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
STRATEGY
Section 676(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the Attorney General or counsel instructed by him/her with the opportunity to appeal various decisions related to criminal proceedings by indictment. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that lawyers and prosecutors must keep in mind. One of the most important strategic considerations is the timing of the appeal. Generally speaking, it is advisable to file the appeal as soon as possible after the decision being appealed. This is because the longer the delay, the greater the likelihood that the court of appeal may be disinclined to grant the appeal, especially if the delay was caused by the party bringing the appeal. Another important strategic consideration is the grounds for the appeal. Section 676(1) of the Criminal Code provides various grounds for appeal, including grounds related to questions of law, jurisdiction, and sentencing. Lawyers and prosecutors must identify the most relevant grounds for appeal and ensure that their argument is grounded in the specific legal principles and case law applicable to the relevant ground(s). A third strategic consideration is the level of deference the court of appeal will give to the lower court's decision. Generally, the court of appeal will give a high degree of deference to the lower court's decision on questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact. However, the court of appeal will give less deference to the lower court's decision on questions of law alone. Thus, lawyers and prosecutors should focus their appeal on questions of law, where possible, to increase their likelihood of success. A fourth strategic consideration is the goals of the appeal. For instance, the Attorney General or counsel might choose to file an appeal to set a legal precedent, clarify an area of law, or correct a miscarriage of justice. The specific goal of the appeal will often impact the legal arguments and strategies used to achieve that goal. In terms of strategies that could be employed, there are several key ones that lawyers and prosecutors can use to increase their likelihood of success. For example, they might collaborate with colleagues to draft a comprehensive and persuasive argument, consult with legal experts in the relevant area of law, and undertake rigorous legal research to locate persuasive case law and legal principles to support their argument. Additionally, they might work to identify and highlight any errors or inconsistencies in the lower court's decision, as well as any gaps in the lower court's reasoning, to further strengthen their argument. Ultimately, when dealing with Section 676(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, lawyers and prosecutors must carefully consider a wide range of strategic considerations and develop a robust and comprehensive legal argument to increase their chances of successfully appealing the decision of the lower court.