Challenging the Validity of a Guilty Plea
To
be effective a guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal and informed. And to
be informed, the person pleading guilty must be aware of the nature of the
allegations said to constitute the offence, the effect of the plea;,and the
consequences of the plea.
R. v. T.(R.) (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 514
(C.A.), at p. 519;
R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309,
at p. 371.
A
guilty plea is a formal in-court admission of guilt. It constitutes a waiver
not only of the accused’s right to require the Crown to prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt by properly admissible evidence, but also of the related
procedural safeguards in the criminal trial process, some of which are
constitutionally enshrined and protected.
T.(R.), at p. 519;
Korponay v. Canada
(Attorney General), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41, at p. 49.
On
an appeal from conviction, an accused may challenge the validity of a guilty
plea, but bears the onus of showing, on a balance of probabilities, that the
plea was invalid because one (or more) of the elements essential to a valid
plea was lacking.
In the usual course, an appellate challenge to
the validity of a guilty plea entered at trial involves the introduction of
fresh evidence in support of the claim, as well as a review of the trial
record:
T.(R.), at p. 519.
An
appellate court retains a discretion, exercisable in the interest of justice,
to receive fresh evidence to explain the circumstances that led to the plea and
to demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
R. v. Hanemaayer, 2008 ONCA 580, 234
C.C.C. (3d) 3, at para. 19;
R. v. Kumar, 2011 ONCA 120, 268 C.C.C.
(3d) 369, at para. 34.
R. v. Faulkner, 2018 ONCA 174, at paras. 84-87.
Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell
Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment