5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "Criminal Charges (1:IV)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Criminal Charges (1:IV) (view source)
Revision as of 03:20, 16 February 2017
, 03:20, 16 February 2017→d) Striking down an Information
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
! style="font-style: italic;text-align: left;" | | ! style="font-style: italic;text-align: left;" | Challenging an Information | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Although the court rarely strikes down an Information due to technical errors, at trial Crown must prove the offence as alleged in the Information. They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the accused, the location of the crime (British Columbia), the physical criminal act, and a guilty mind. Despite the very broad power to amend an Information to cure technical defects prior to the end of the trial, amendments after the defence/accused has closed its case are less likely to be granted. This is because once defence/accused has closed its case – based on a flawed Information, and with a view to a closing argument that Crown has not proven the Information as alleged – the accused is prejudiced by any subsequent amendment of the Information. Hence a possible strategy on a case where there is an error in the Information is to wait out the Crown’s case, close the defence case, and then argue reasonable doubt on the offence as alleged. | | Although the court rarely strikes down an Information due to technical errors, at trial Crown must prove the offence as alleged in the Information. They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the accused, the location of the crime (British Columbia), the physical criminal act, and a guilty mind. Despite the very broad power to amend an Information to cure technical defects prior to the end of the trial, amendments after the defence/accused has closed its case are less likely to be granted. This is because once defence/accused has closed its case – based on a flawed Information, and with a view to a closing argument that Crown has not proven the Information as alleged – the accused is prejudiced by any subsequent amendment of the Information. Hence a possible strategy on a case where there is an error in the Information is to wait out the Crown’s case, close the defence case, and then argue reasonable doubt on the offence as alleged. | ||