5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "Criminal Charges (1:IV)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Criminal Charges (1:IV) (view source)
Revision as of 03:34, 16 February 2017
, 03:34, 16 February 2017→G. Assessing the Strength of the Case
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
The accused should keep in mind that if there is a no-contact or an area restriction, he/she must remember that contacting the complainant or going to that location is a criminal offence. | The accused should keep in mind that if there is a no-contact or an area restriction, he/she must remember that contacting the complainant or going to that location is a criminal offence. | ||
== G. Assessing the | == G. Assessing the strength of the case == | ||
Once the accused has received the particulars and knows the evidence that Crown would seek to lead in its case to prove the accused’s guilt, it is important to critically assess the strength of the Crown’s case, and consider any challenges which can be made to the case. At this stage, the accused/defence should be in a position to review the elements of the offence and be able to concisely summarize the key evidence that the Crown Counsel will seek to adduce at trial to prove each element of the offense. | Once the accused has received the particulars and knows the evidence that Crown would seek to lead in its case to prove the accused’s guilt, it is important to critically assess the strength of the Crown’s case, and consider any challenges which can be made to the case. At this stage, the accused/defence should be in a position to review the elements of the offence and be able to concisely summarize the key evidence that the Crown Counsel will seek to adduce at trial to prove each element of the offense. | ||
=== 1. Things to | === 1. Things to consider when assessing the Crown's evidence === | ||
For each key piece of evidence that the Crown needs to establish its case, consider the following : | For each key piece of evidence that the Crown needs to establish its case, consider the following : | ||
==== a) Is the | ==== a) Is the evidence direct or circumstantial? ==== | ||
If the evidence is circumstantial, is there an innocent explanation for the totality of circumstances? | If the evidence is circumstantial, is there an innocent explanation for the totality of circumstances? | ||
==== b) Is the | ==== b) Is the evidence testimonial? ==== | ||
For testimonial evidence, consider the reliability and credibility of the witness. Consider whether there is a good reason to suspect that the witness is mistaken (attacking reliability) or lying (credibility). | For testimonial evidence, consider the reliability and credibility of the witness. Consider whether there is a good reason to suspect that the witness is mistaken (attacking reliability) or lying (credibility). | ||
==== c) Is the | ==== c) Is the evidence physical evidence? ==== | ||
If the evidence is physical evidence that has been collected by the police, consider the chain of custody of the item and whether there has been a break in the continuity of custody. | If the evidence is physical evidence that has been collected by the police, consider the chain of custody of the item and whether there has been a break in the continuity of custody. | ||
==== d) Is | ==== d) Is there a possible Charter challenge ==== | ||
Consider whether there is a possible Charter challenge that could result in the exclusion of evidence. Charter challenges include challenges to police searches, arrests, and confessions. (See ''Section X'' for information on Charter challenges) | Consider whether there is a possible Charter challenge that could result in the exclusion of evidence. Charter challenges include challenges to police searches, arrests, and confessions. (See ''Section X'' for information on Charter challenges) | ||
==== e) Are | ==== e) Are there any other exclusion rules ==== | ||
Consider whether there are other exclusionary rules that could be used to exclude any key pieces of evidence that the Crown needs to prove its case. Generally, if a piece of evidence has more prejudicial effect than probative value, the evidence will be excluded. (''R v. Seaboyer'' [1991] 2 SCR 577) | Consider whether there are other exclusionary rules that could be used to exclude any key pieces of evidence that the Crown needs to prove its case. Generally, if a piece of evidence has more prejudicial effect than probative value, the evidence will be excluded. (''R v. Seaboyer'' [1991] 2 SCR 577) | ||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}} | ||
