INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section defines a summary conviction court and outlines who has jurisdiction over proceedings.
785 In this Part, "summary conviction court" means a person who has jurisdiction in the territorial division where the subject-matter of the proceedings is alleged to have arisen and who (a) is given jurisdiction over the proceedings by the enactment under which the proceedings are taken, (b) is a justice or provincial court judge, where the enactment under which the proceedings are taken does not expressly give jurisdiction to any person or class of persons, or (c) is a provincial court judge, where the enactment under which the proceedings are taken gives jurisdiction in respect thereof to two or more justices.
Section 785 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a definition for "summary conviction court" in relation to criminal proceedings. This definition applies to Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, which outlines the procedures and penalties for summary convictions. A summary conviction is a less serious offence than an indictable offence, and is typically punishable by fines, short-term imprisonment, or probation. Summary convictions are usually dealt with in provincial courts, which are presided over by judges or justices of the peace. According to Section 785, a summary conviction court is a court that has jurisdiction over the territorial division where the alleged offence took place. This means that the court must be located in the same area where the offence was committed, in order to have the authority to hear and determine the case. In addition, the court must have the authority to hear the case based on the specific enactment under which the proceedings are taken. This means that the court must be authorized by the relevant legislation to hear and determine summary conviction cases. Finally, Section 785 clarifies that a provincial court judge can act as a summary conviction court, either alone or in conjunction with other justices, depending on the requirements of the relevant legislation. This provision allows for flexibility in assigning judges to hear summary conviction cases, while ensuring that the court has the necessary jurisdiction to do so.
Section 785 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term "summary conviction court" and outlines the requirements for a person or entity to qualify as one. Essentially, a summary conviction court is a court that has jurisdiction over criminal proceedings that are tried summarily-that is, without a full trial. The section begins by defining the term "summary conviction court," which includes any person with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceedings in question. This may include a justice or provincial court judge, depending on the nature of the proceedings and the authority granted by the relevant legislation. The definition is broad and open-ended, leaving the door open for other individuals or entities to fall under this category if they meet certain criteria. The remainder of the section outlines the various conditions that must be met in order for a person or entity to qualify as a summary conviction court. These conditions include being given jurisdiction over the proceedings by the relevant legislation, being a justice or provincial court judge in cases where the legislation is silent on the matter, and being a provincial court judge where two or more justices are given jurisdiction over the matter. Overall, the purpose of section 785 is to provide a clear definition of what constitutes a summary conviction court in Canada. This is important because summary conviction proceedings are a common form of criminal trial, particularly for less serious offences. By defining the term, the section helps to ensure that the right people are presiding over such trials and that they have been granted the proper authority to do so. One notable aspect of section 785 is that it leaves a fair amount of discretion in the hands of individual justices or judges. For example, the section allows for a justice or provincial court judge to serve as a summary conviction court even if the legislation in question does not expressly give them jurisdiction. This could be seen as a way of allowing for a more flexible and adaptable criminal justice system, one that can respond to the unique circumstances of each case. Overall, section 785 is an important piece of legislation that serves to define and regulate the role of summary conviction courts in Canada. While it is a relatively small section of the Criminal Code, it has significant implications for how criminal proceedings are conducted in this country and how justice is served. As such, it is essential that judges, lawyers, and other legal professionals are familiar with its provisions and how to apply them in practice.
Section 785 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term summary conviction court" as a person or court who has jurisdiction over proceedings related to criminal offenses that are deemed less serious and have shorter time frames for prosecution, usually up to two years. This section of the Criminal Code of Canada has several strategic considerations for parties involved in proceedings before a summary conviction court. The first strategic consideration for parties involved in proceedings before a summary conviction court is to be aware that all criminal offenses that are less serious fall under the jurisdiction of summary conviction courts. These offenses include minor drug possession, driving under the influence of alcohol, theft of property valued at less than $5,000, and other minor offenses. Thus, it is important to understand the seriousness of the offense and the applicable law governing it. The second strategic consideration for parties involved in proceedings before a summary conviction court is to understand the time frames for prosecution. This means that if you have been charged with a crime that falls under the jurisdiction of the summary conviction court, the prosecutor has only six months to begin the proceedings. This time frame is an important consideration because if the proceedings are not initiated within the time frame, the charges may be dropped. The third strategic consideration for parties involved in proceedings before a summary conviction court is to understand the role and jurisdiction of the prosecutor. In summary conviction proceedings, the prosecutor has the power to offer plea bargains or reduced sentences if the accused person agrees to plead guilty. This strategy may be beneficial to the accused person as it may result in a lesser sentence, but it requires an understanding of the potential risks and benefits of this approach. Another strategic consideration for parties involved in proceedings before a summary conviction court is to understand the role and jurisdiction of the defense attorney. The defense attorney can challenge the jurisdiction of the court or argue that the evidence against the accused person is not sufficient to establish the commission of the crime. The defense attorney can also argue that the accused person should receive a suspended sentence or reduced sentence due to extenuating circumstances. A final strategic consideration for parties involved in proceedings before a summary conviction court is to understand the potential consequences of a guilty verdict. In addition to fines and potential jail time, a guilty verdict can also have non-criminal consequences such as losing your driver's license or immigration status. The potential consequences of a guilty verdict must be taken into account when considering plea bargains or reduced sentences. In conclusion, parties involved in proceedings before a summary conviction court must take into account several strategic considerations, including the seriousness of the offense, the time frames for prosecution, the roles and jurisdiction of the prosecutor and defense attorney, and the potential consequences of a guilty verdict. Effective strategies for dealing with these considerations may include seeking legal counsel, negotiating plea bargains or reduced sentences, or challenging the jurisdiction of the court or the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
Copyright 2023 - Powered by: