Canadian Law Notes Chapter 5 PDF

LAW NOTES CHAPTER 5 Introduction -Arrests may either happen at the same time a crime is being committed or after a long police investigation. - When they get arrested, they no longer get referred to as a suspect but now is an accused - in either case the person charged has certain legal rights to...

LAW NOTES CHAPTER 5 Introduction -Arrests may either happen at the same time a crime is being committed or after a long police investigation. - When they get arrested, they no longer get referred to as a suspect but now is an accused - in either case the person charged has certain legal rights to protect them during the arrest and trial procedures. These rights are founded in sections 7-14 in the charter and ensure that the accused is protected from unfair treatment as they move through Canada’s criminal justice system. - Section 7 of the charter guarantees the life, liberty and personal security of all Canadians and demands that governments respect the basic principles of justice whenever they interfere with those rights -An accused risks losing their liberty (the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions) when convicted -Section 7 also includes the right to security of the person which means that Canadians have the right to be safe from physical and psychological harm Legal rights which are made to protect individuals during their arrest and trial procedures are important to know as you can make sure you are being treated legally when you are being arrested. Limits on police behavior -Police may not arrest a suspect simply because they have committed a crime, they must need reasonable and probable grounds that the individual in question was involved in a crime. - when police establish that they have grounds and are ready to apprehend and charge the suspect they can do one of three things 1. Issue an appearance notice: This is done when police believe that the accused is not a threat to society and will show up at their bail hearing. They will then issue an appearance notice which is used for summary conviction offences and less serious indictable offences. The appearance notice includes the offences that the accused has been charged with and the time and place of the required court appearance. The officer will then swear an information (complaint under oath that a crime has been committed.) before a judge or justice of peace; The information is the basis of all charges. Police must swear an information before a judge or justice of peace as swearing an information ensures that the police truly believe that the accused has committed a crime and also because the police need to present the basis of the charges against the accused before a trial can start. 2. Arrest the Suspect: This is done for more serious indictable offences and is done when the police arrests the suspect and takes them into their custody. The purpose of the arrest is to lay charges, preserve evidence and prevent the accused from fleeing or committing further offences. An officer can arrest a suspect without a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe that someone has committed or is about to commit an offence. The police must also follow the legal steps in a lawful arrest ( refer to the image below.) If the accused resists arrest, then the police have the legal authority to use as much force as is necessary to prevent an escape. A trial judge will decide if the police used necessary force or if they used excessive force and thereby infringed on the accused security of person which can lead to criminal or civil assault charges against the officer. Police are allowed to use deadly forces if the behavior of a suspect may cause serious harm or death to others, the suspect flees to escape arrest, there are no alternative means to prevent escape. 3. Obtain a warrant for arrest: This is used when police have difficulty finding the accused and therefore police go before a judge or a justice of peace and recieve a document called a summons which orders the accused to appear in court at a certain time and place and is delivered to the accused by a sheriff or a deputy. If the police can demonstrate to the judge that the accused will not appear in court voluntarily the judge will issue an arrest warrant which names the accused, ( or describes the accused if the name is unknown, lists the offences and orders the arrest of the accused. If the judge does not believe that the police have provided reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence the judge or justice of peace will not issue a summons or a warrant. Police may want to detain people and search them prior to arrest to find and preserve evidence that the detained individual(s) may have on them. Citizens arrest ( detainment by a civilian of a person believed to have committed a crime) -is an arrest a regular citizen can make if he or she witnesses a criminal act or believes that a suspect has just committed one. -This belief must be reasonable, and the arresting citizen cannot us excessive force -arresting citizen must surrender the suspect to police ASAP - arresting citizen should state clearly that she or he is placing the suspect under arrest - If the arresting citizen acts in an unreasonable way they can be sued - The citizens arrest is covered in section 494 of the criminal code Duties of a Police Officer - Crime Prevention - Law enforcement - Assistance to victims of crime - Maintenance of public order - Emergency response - Investigation of a crime - Preserving peace - Apprehending criminals - Laying charges - Participating in prosecutions - Executing warrants - Performing duties that the police chief assigns - Enforcing laws - Completing necessary training I believe that between the obligation to protect or the duty to punish, police should prioritize the former. I believe this as I perceive their obligation to protect as their primary purpose and role in society while their duty to punish is more of their secondary purpose with the duty to punish being a much more collective effort from the entire legal system. -Officers must keep an accurate log (written record) of what they see and hear at the scene of the crime. These logs may provide important evidence in court -Upon arrest it is the duty of the police officer to search the accused for potential evidence -Police may also take the accused to a police station where a more through search is likely to take place which might mean a search, frisk and body search if drugs are involved. -A body search must be done with rubber gloves on -A body search involves running fingers through hair, opening mouth, lifting tounge, inserting fingers in other parts of the body -extensive body search must be conducted by officers of the same sex and cannot be done without reasonable and probable grounds that the accused has drugs on his or her person -Validity of the body search will be determined by the trial judge -Police are also authorized to fingerprint and photograph the accused at this time Fingerprints and photographs of people who are acquitted of a crime do not automatically get removed from police files. I disagree with this procedure as if they have been proved not guilty by the justice system then they should be free of any scrutiny. -The accused may also me asked to take part in a lineup ( a line of people formed by the police for identification) -The accused may also be asked to take a polygraph test or give blood, urine, DNA or breath samples. - The accused may refuse all of these requests except in the cases of impaired driving offences where blood and breath samples are required -A court issued warrant can grant police to obtain DNA samples from suspects as per the Criminal COde  - In Canada policing is carried out at three levels federal, provincial and municipal - The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is the federal national police force - Provincial police forces in Ontario and Quebec are the Ontario Provincial Police and the Surete du Quebec. In all other provinces and territories, the RCMP also serves as the provincial police force because of smaller populations. - Municipal police such as the Vancouver Police Department enforce criminal and municipal laws and they mainly work within the city’s - The RCMP across Canada, the OPP in Ontario and the SQ in Quebec act as the municipal police in towns that do not have their own police force Police Conduct and the Police Service Act Police Conduct is controlled in four main ways 1. Legislatively (through statutes such as the Police Services Act) 2. Judicially (through years of common law precedents) 3. Administratively (The Ontario Civilian Commision on Police Services oversees police conduct in Ontario) 4. Constitutionally legal rights in sections 7 to 10 of the charter) - If police break the rules of police conduct there evidence may be refused and therefore null and void which can result in an acquittal (A judgement that a person is not guilty of a crime) and may even in rare and extreme cases be charged under criminal law or sued under civil law - criminal acts can outweigh police misconduct that occurs. SECTION 7-11 of the charter Lists the legal rights of all Canadian citizens · The right to life, liberty and security of the person · The right to be secure against unreasonable searches or seizures · The right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned · The right to be informed promptly of the reason for arrest or detention · The right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right upon arrest or detention · The right to have the validity of the detention determined by the way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. · The right to be informed without unreasonable delay upon being charged with an offence · The right to be tried within a reasonable time if charged with an offence · The right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against a person in respect of an offence · The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal if charged with an offence · The right to not be denied reasonable bail without just cause if charged with an offence · The right to benefit from a trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment if charged with an offence (excluding cases of offences under military law tried before a military tribunal) · The right to be found not guilty on account of any act or omission unless the act or omission constituted an offence under Canadian or international law at the time of the act or omission according to the general principles of law if charged with an offence · The right to not be tried again for an offence an individual has been charged with if acquitted of the offence or found guilty and punished for the offence. It is important to co-operate with the police as you could face legal consequences if you fail to do so. It is not advisable to co-operate with the police under circumstances such as when you are waiting for your lawyer, so you remain silent despite the police asking you questions Section 8 of the charter states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure -Police can search a person without a warrant if they have arrested this person or if they believe that they are carrying a concealed weapon. This is known as police search incident to arrest -police cannot demand that you tell them your name or even make you stand still except if you are driving your car in which they may stop your car to check for the mechanics of the vehicle, ask for your license, ownership and insurance papers - For a car search police must see something in your car in plain view such as alcohol, drugs or weapons Rights on being searched -After someone is arrested for a crime police may only be alowed to enter and search your home with a search warrant which is a legal court-issued document giving them the authority to search -Process in obtaining a search warrant: police officers must swear before a judge or JOP that an offence has been committed. They also must have reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of the crime exists on the property. If the information of the evidence is from an informant the officer must outline to the court why the informant is reliable before a warrant is issued. If the officers testimony is accepted a search warrant is issued. - A warrant can only be used to search a residence on the date indicated - Only the items mentioned in a search warrant can be seized unless other illegal items are found during the search - Items seized can be kept up to three months or for a longer period if it is needed as evidence at trial - If permission to enter with a search warrant is refused from the homeowner or if no one is home the police have the right to break into the premises. - Tele warrants are a new type of warrant. It is a court order issued by phone, fax or email to search for a place or arrest a person. This has enhanced police powers as they allow warrants to be obtained quickly. Initially made for remote areas of Canada where police officers have difficulty appearing in person before a justice. - There are some important exceptions to the search laws as under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the police may search any place that is not a private residence without a warrant if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it contains illegal drugs. Anyone found inside these premises can also be searched without a warrant. - Warrantless searches usually occur due to the lack of time to obtain a warrant or due to the need for a surprise entry. - This applies to weapons too RIGHTS ON BEING DETAINED Section 9 of the charter states that everyone has the right not to be arbitarily detained or imprisoned. This means that a person cannot be stopped, held for questioning, arrested or put in jail unless the police have a good reason to do so. - When officers stop someone for questioing that means that person has been detained - People who are detained and not arrested can legally not answer the police - Detention should either lead to arrest or the person being free - Citizens who have been detained against their will have been detained illegally and they may make a complaint about police conduct - If a citizen has been arrested wrongfuly they may challenge the validity of any evidence collected RIGHTS ON BEING ARRESTED - An accused’s request to contact a lawyer must be honored immediately - Duty Counsel is a criminal defense lawyer employed by the government or legal aid to assist accused persons at their first appearance - Upon arrest accused can refuse to answer any questions aside from the basic information needed to charge the accused such as their name, address, occupation and DOB. - Section 10 of the charter states that on arrest or detention everyone has the right to be informed of the reasons for arrest, to retain and instruct counsel and to have the validitity of the detention determined by the way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. - If you say you want a lawyer police must stop questioning you until you have had a chance to speak privately with a lawyer - Police must tell you about legal aid as per section 10b ( legal services paid for by taxpayers, available to people unable to afford a lawyer.) and duty counsel(a government lawyer who provides legal advice to those just arrested or brought before the court) and give you a phone book and phone. Police must also provide you with the toll-free number for legal aid - So if the accused cannot afford a lawyer he or she can apply for legal aid. Legal aid is generally granted to those whose family incomes are low. People recieving legal aid can choose which lawyer represents them which many argue is unfair to the middle class. - Section 10c of the charter states that all accused persons have the right to tell their story to a judge or justice of the peace who will decide within 24 hours if they should remain in custody. This is called a bail hearing - RELEASE AND BAIL PROCEDURES 4.​ A) Release right after being arrested: This type of pre-trial release is used when police officers believe that the accused presents no further danger and will appear on the trial date. Ex. If Jim was arrested due to speeding, is a first time offender and the police believe that he poses no further danger to public and that he will voluntarily appear on the trial date he will be released. B) Released after being taken to the police station: This type of pre-trial release is extremely similar to the first with the only difference being that instead of immediate release, the release would take place after the accused had been taken to a police station where the police record the criminal charges and take fingerprints and photographs. EX. If Bob was arrested for speeding he would be taken to a police station, have his photograph and fingerprints taken and then would be released only if the police believe that he poses no further danger to the public and that he will voluntarily appear on the trial date he will be released. C) Bail is another type of pre-trial release in which the accused puts up money or property which they use as leverage to ensure the court that they will return to the court on a later set date for trial as if they fail to do so they will lose their money or property. This kind of pre-trial release like all other kinds of pre-trial release is only granted if the accused poses no further danger to the public and if they are believed to voluntarily appear for their trial date. Ex. Bob punches Phil and is now looking at assault charges. The judges sets the bail at 5000 CAD which Bob meets and is therefore allowed to be released. If he were to not appear at his trial date then his money would be gone but if he were to show up then he would retain the money. D) For more serious offences such as murder or if the accused were charged while out on bail on another charge the person must convince the court that they should not stay in custody and should be released until the court date appearance. This is known as reverse onus where the burden of proof is placed on the defence rather than the crown. If released the accused is required to sign an undertaking and to live up tot he conditions set by the court. These conditions might include a curfew, orders not to associate with certain friends or go to certain places and having to report to a police station once a week. The accused may also be required to sign a recognizance which is a document that states the accused recognizes that he or she is charged with an offence and that he or she promises to appear in court on that certain date. If the release is denied, then he or she is entitled to appeal the decision to a higher court. And if the accused is kept in prison without being arrested or is denied a bail hearing an application for a writ of habeas corpus can be made. The writ requires the accused to appear in court and to swear that he or she has been denied these rights and to ask for release. A judge then rules on the application and if the writ is granted the accused is released Habeas Corpus is an important legal right in a civil democracy as it protects people from wrongful detention in any shape or form which is a core principle in civil democracies. - People who are charged with indictable offences and are released may be fingerprinted and photographed before being released. Biometrics may also be used which are there physical features. Fingerprints and photographs of people who are acquitted of a crime do not automatically get removed from police files. I disagree with this procedure as if they have been proved not guilty by the justice system then they should be free of any scrutiny. -Marinating balance between individual rights and society’s safety and security is a difficult dilemma and raises concerns in many criminal cases - Too much emphasis on individual rights and freedoms can make police work too difficult and it can leave society at risk because dangerous criminals may not be captured - Too much emphasis on protecting society can result in a police state where individuals have limited rights and are powerless against the state and police intrusion I believe the balance of individual rights and the protection of society as a whole must be maintained as without a balance there arises many problems such as criminals not getting captured and society becoming a police state. I believe this balance is not being achieved due to procedures such as the one in question 4 as if that and other wrongful procedures/laws still exist then the system is broken. AWAITING TRIAL -When awaiting trial, the accused should consult a criminal defence lawyer. - He or she should reveal everything connected to the case to allow the lawyer to prepare the best possible defense -If the accused admits to the lawyer that they committed a crime the lawyer cannot say that his or her client did not commit the crime and all they can do it attack the crowns case. - To prepare for trial, lawyers will study legal texts and laws related to the offence and can interview witnesses, examine previous court decisions and precedents and gather any other necessary background information to present the best possible defense -The accused has the right to make suggestions to the lawyers and if there is serious disagreement the accused can change lawyers or the lawyer can withdraw from the case -Disclosure which is the process of the crown revealing to the defense all the evidence they have against the accused early in the proceedings to ensure a fair trial. They must disclose all evidence not just the evidence they intend to use. This allows the defense to properly present a defense -The only thing that the defense attorney needs to reveal to the crown is whether they plan to put forward a defense alibi so the crown can investigate the alibi. -After disclosure has been received there will be a preliminary hearing in which the expected evidence is shown to a judge. IF the judge or crown concludes that there is not enough evidence to proceed, the charges may be dropped. Before a criminal trial both the Crown and the defense may examine all the items and information collected by the police in their investigations. The items and information are collectively known as evidence. Some of these items will be tendered to the court as evidence in the trial. Evidence may also include DNA and other forensic science tests. - Police ovtain DNA samples from suspects with consent and on rare occasions when a warrant is issued as collecting DNA is considered one of the most invasive searches as it collects the most private information - DNA is so important that there is an RCMP National DNA Data Bank in Ottawa, it stores the genetic profiles of people convicted in serious crimes. The Data bank was created in response of the DNA Identification Act of 2000 which helps law enforcement agencies link crimes together where there are no suspects, help identify suspects, eliminate suspects where there is no match between crime scene DNA and a DNA profile in the data bank and determine wheter a serial offender is involved in the crime. When the accused appears in court the provincial court judge sets a trial date. If the accused has no lawyer he or she may speak to duty counsel or ask for an adjournment ( a postponement of court business) to apply for legal aid The judge also indicates in which court the case will be tried - For more serious indictable offences if tried in a provincial court there will be a judge alone with no jury but if tried in a provincial superior court there may be a judge without a jury or with a jury The Plea Someone charged with committing a criminal offence then enters a plea in provincial court and about 90 percent of accused Canadians enter a plea of guilty. A preliminary hearing occurs for very serious offences and it lets the provincial court judge decide whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial in a higher court. During the preliminary hearing the defense does not need to present evidence but can cross examine crown witnesses Before Trial, defense lawyers and crown attorneys participate in resolution discussions ( a pretrial meeting between the defense and crown to resolve the case without a trial.) The result can be a plea negotiation known in the united states as plea bargaining. Plea and sentencing decisions are discussed in these pre-trial discussions. If there is strong evidence against the accused the defence may encourage the accused to plead guilty to a lesser charge in hope of recieving a lighter sentence. A guilty plea to a lesser charge benefits the court by saving time and the Canadian taxpayers money. - Plea negotiations greatly reduce the number of cases going to trial. plea negotiations of seem sleazy but in the end justice is served as the crown gets a conviction and the accused receives a penalty although not the maximum one. This process can save victims or their families a great deal of suffering as they do not need to take the witness stand an relieve their ordeals. A negative is that innocent defendants may feel pressured to “cop a plea” out of fear that they will get convicted at trial. A lawyer cannot encourage a client to plea guilty if they are not guilty. A judge cannot accept a guilty plea if the accused indicates that he or she did not do it but wants the matter cleaned up quickly.  5.​ Plea negotiation is the process in which the accused ( the defence) and the crown compromise for a deal in which the defence pleas guilty in exchange for a lesser charge/ penalty. In response to the dilemma "Is it morally correct to trade the legal rights guaranteed by the charter for convenience and cost savings," I believe that the sacrifice of legal rights guaranteed by the charter is morally correct due to a few reasons. First of all, in addition to saving costs and being more convenient plea negotiations also allow the criminal justice system to bring guilty people to justice as going to trial is often described as many as a coin toss, although the punishment is considerably lighter than the standard one, many individuals perceive a light sentence better than a 50/50 chance at a harsh one. Moreover, plea negotiations do not inherently strip an individuals legal rights, such as the right to a fair trial, as the accused still has the option to do so as plea negotiation are strictly voluntary. 1. Police Investigation: · Incident: A crime is reported or observed by the police. · Investigation: Police gather evidence, interview witnesses, and, if necessary, obtain warrants for searches or arrests. · Arrest: If the police believe there is sufficient evidence, they arrest the suspect and inform them of their rights under the Charter (e.g., the right to remain silent and to retain counsel). · Charges: The police lay charges, often in consultation with the Crown prosecutor. 2. Release or Detention: · After arrest, the accused is either: o Released: On a promise to appear, undertaking, or recognizance with or without conditions. o Held in Custody: If the police believe the accused is a flight risk or poses a threat, they may hold the accused for a bail hearing. 3. Bail Hearing (if detained): · Within 24 hours of arrest, the accused must appear before a judge or justice of the peace. · The judge decides whether to: o Release the accused with conditions. o Detain the accused in custody until the trial. 4. First Court Appearance (Arraignment): · The accused appears in court for the first time to hear the charges. · The accused enters a plea: o Guilty: The case proceeds directly to sentencing. o Not Guilty: The case proceeds to the next stage, depending on the type of offense. 5. Pre-Trial Process: · Disclosure: The Crown provides the defense with all evidence (e.g., police reports, witness statements, exhibits). · Preliminary Hearing (if applicable): o For serious indictable offenses, the accused can request a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. o If the judge finds sufficient evidence, the case goes to trial. 6. Trial: · Type of Trial: o Summary Conviction Offenses: Tried in provincial court by a judge alone. o Indictable Offenses: Tried in either provincial court (less serious) or superior court (more serious). The accused can choose between: § Judge Alone, or § Judge and Jury (for serious offenses). · Evidence and Witnesses: The Crown and defense present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make legal arguments. · Verdict: o If found not guilty, the accused is acquitted, and the case ends. o If found guilty, the case proceeds to sentencing. 7. Sentencing: · Sentencing Hearing: After a guilty plea or conviction, the judge considers factors like: o The nature of the crime. o Aggravating/mitigating circumstances. o Victim impact statements. o Pre-sentence reports. · Sentence Imposed: Options include: o Discharge (absolute or conditional). o Probation. o Fines. o Community Service. o Imprisonment (provincial jail for sentences under 2 years, federal prison for sentences of 2 years or more). 8. Appeals (Optional): · After sentencing, either the defense or Crown may appeal the conviction, sentence, or both, depending on legal grounds. Key Timeline Summary: 1. ​ Crime → Police Investigation. 2. ​ Arrest → Charges Laid. 3. ​ Release/Bail Hearing. 4. ​ First Court Appearance → Plea. 5. ​ Preliminary Hearing (if applicable). 6. ​ Trial → Verdict. 7. ​ Sentencing. 8. ​ Appeals (if any). Each case varies, but this is the general structure followed in Canadian criminal proceedings. 1.​ The social contract between the public and the police which is the mutually agreed terms of the public allowing police to enforce the laws of Canada fairly and without the use of excessive force. I believe that the use of tasers falls under this social contract as tasers are a useful asset for police to enforce the law in circumstances that see the need for tasers. In address to the second part of the contract " without the use of excessive force," the term excessive force refers to using force that is greater than necessary to control a situation or detain a person, so if a taser is deemed by general perception as necessary than police would not be using excessive force. 2.​ I believe that the voltage of tasers should be reduced only if it could be reduced to a level that could reduce the risk of injury or death while still  functioning as a way for police to incapacitate others if needed. I believe that tasers should not be classified on the same levels as gun as tasers are intended for non-lethal use 3.​ I believe that between the obligation to protect or the duty to punish, police should prioritize the former. I believe this as I perceive their obligation to protect as their primary purpose and role in society while their duty to punish is more of their secondary purpose with the duty to punish being a much more collective effort from the entire legal system. 4.The 2008 Public inquiry on tasers resulted in recommendations for tasers to only be used in situations that requires their use as well as police officers to receive improved training and education on tasers. 1. Prior to the discovery of videotapes, the Crown believed that Homolka's testimony was necessary to convict Bernardo. Given this situation, was the plea bargain a reasonable agreement for both Homolka and the Crown? Explain your answer. I believe that the plea bargain was a reasonable agreement in the perspective of the crown at the time due to the facts they had available to them and the role they thought that Karla Homolka played in the spree of crimes. Moreover the Crown and society were more eager to put Karla's husband at the time Paul Bernardo behind bars which was another factor leading to the "deal of the century" as they believe they needed Homolka's testimony to convict Bernardo. On the other side of the plea agreement Karla Homolka received a more than reasonable agreement as she knew all the facts and deceived the police into thinking she played a minimal role in the rapes and killings which led to her to be given an extremely light sentence. 2. When the tapes were made available to the Crown, no further charges were made against Homolka. In your opinion, what would be the effect on future plea bargains if the Crown attempted to prosecute her on other charges in spite of their agreement? Explain your answer. If the Crown had attempted to prosecute Homolka on other charges following their prior agreement and the discovery of the tapes future there would be a massive effect on future plea bargains. The attempt to prosecute Homolka on other charges would have led to plea bargains being dismissed by many as it would have a tainted and illegitimate reputation as they would know that there would be potential for the Crown to prosecute them on other charges if other evidence was ever to resurface.  3. "Usually, the plea bargain is offered to the lesser players of the crime, in order to secure a conviction of the more important accused." Do you think this scenario played out in Homolka's plea bargain? Why would it be thought that she was a lesser player in the crime? Explain your answer. I believe that this scenario played out in Homolka's plea bargain as although she was a bigger player than initially thought, she was still the secondary accomplice in my eyes to Paul Bernardo. I believe that she was the "lesser player" in the spree of crimes despite her being and equal accomplice in all the crimes as I believe that she was manipulated and abused to a certain extent by Paul, which was the reason for her partaking in the crimes. 4. What challenges did Paul Bernardo's defense team face after Karla Homolka took the plea bargain? (5 marks) In 1993 Karla Homolka took her infamous plea bargain deal which was later dubbed the "deal with the devil" due to most of society believing that Homolka had gotten off way too easy. Her infamous deal caused a significant challenge to her then husband Paul Bernardo and his defense team as the deal entailed that Homolka was to testify against him. Sure enough, her testimony was damning and was a crucial part in putting Paul behind bars to this day. 5. What is your reaction to the plea bargaining that was used in this criminal case? Answer in a paragraph response. (10 marks) The plea bargain that occurred in Karla Homolka's case is in many eyes a catastrophic failure of the justice system as it allowed Homolka to receive an extremely lenient sentence for her horrific crimes, which caused mass outrage. However, in my opinion, although in the back of my mind I abhor the fact that Homolka was only in jail for 12 years the fact is that the criminal justice system did not have the evidence to incriminate Homolka for the totality of her actions due to the evidence that they did not have and the evidence that they may have never gotten. Additionally, Homolka's plea bargain which included her damning testimony was used to put her partner in crime, Paul Bernardo, who in my opinion was the primary perpetrator between him and Homolka, behind bars up to this day. Although the plea bargain was certainly flawed, in contrast to general opinion, my perspective of this infamous deal is one of the crown trying their best but falling short due to insufficient evidence and prioritizing the incarceration of Paul Bernardo instead of Karla Homolka which was ultimately what led to Karla's lackluster sentence and the mass public outrage. ADDITIONAL Remand: the detention of an accused person in custody while they are awaiting trial or further court proceedings Remand refers to the detention of an accused person in custody while they are awaiting trial or further court proceedings. It occurs when the court decides not to release the accused on bail. Instead, they are held in a remand facility (a jail or detention center) until their case is resolved or they are granted bail. When Does Remand Happen? 1. After Arrest: a. If the police arrest someone and believe they pose a risk (e.g., they might flee, commit another crime, or interfere with the case), they can detain them for a bail hearing. 2. At a Bail Hearing: a. If the court decides there’s a valid reason to keep the accused in custody (e.g., they’re a flight risk, a danger to the public, or unlikely to attend future court dates), they will be remanded into custody. b. If bail is granted, the accused is released with conditions (e.g., reporting to police, curfews). Types of Remand: 1. ​ Pre-Trial Remand: a. The accused is held in custody while waiting for their trial to begin. 2. ​ Remand During Trial: a. The accused is held in custody throughout the trial process. IIO is Independent Investigations office Insignificant cases: Page 171 - R. v. Feenie - Discussion Questions #1-4 1.​ I believe that the RCMP did not obtain a search warrant before searching Michael Feeney's house as they felt the need to do so due to Feeney possibly posing an imminent threat to the public which led to the search of his house without a search warrant. 2.​ The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial as the police did not obtain a search warrant prior to the entering of Feeney's house 3.​ The RCMP obtained new evidence to prove his guilt as the bloody shirt found in his house was inadmissible. The new evidence that they found to prove Feeney's guilt in the second trial were a matching pair of fingerprints of Feeney's found at the crime scene and fingerprints originating from a sample collected by the Calgary Police service when Feeney was detained for breaking and entering. 4.​ Section 8 of the Charter protects the homes of individuals as it forbids unreasonable searches or seizures. 5a. In this scenario Puneeta is charged with assault due to the pushing and shoving match that broke out due to her resistance of her arrest 5b. Yes I believe that Puneeta should be guilty of assault as even if the arrest was wrongful that does not grant Puneeta the right to physically resist the arrest in the manner she showcased. Page 152 - R. v. Harrison #1-3 1. No this case does not mean that the courts are condoning police misconduct as this case was an exceptional circumstance where the criminal act outweighed the police misconduct that occurred. 2. This question is not possible to answer without context as to answer the dilemma which is worse ( a breach of Charter rights by admitting tainted evidence or allowing a serious crime to go unpunished) one must look at several factors such as the seriousness of the crime. 3. Although Justice Binnie does advocate against the concept of prioritizing police efficiency and effectiveness which is essentially what this case focuses on; I believe that she would agree with the ruiling made by the Ontario  Court of Appeal as I believe that the breach of charter rights by admitting tainted evidence is justified in this case. Page 149 - R. v. Asante-Mensah - Do you think regular citizens should be allowed to make an arrest? Explain. `I believe that regular citizens should be able to make an arrest in circumstances such as this one when immediate action is needed to stop a crime or a criminal and there is a lack of police in the area. QUESTIONS Steps on a lawful arrest? Duties of a Police Officer? Knowing which sections of the charter has which rights? Police conduct is controlled in 4 main ways? Principles of Canadian Police Services? Alan Borovoy? Structure of justice system process? Tasers? How detailed on Homolka cases? Remand? Insignificant cases?