Goodbye to Preliminary Inquiries
Bill C-75, the federal government’s 300+
page omnibus bill makes some significant alterations to the landscape of
criminal procedure, including restricting preliminary inquiries to offences
punishable by imprisonment for life and investing a justice with increased
powers to limit the issues explored and the witnesses to be heard at the
inquiry.
A preliminary inquiry is a screening
mechanism for the purpose of determining whether the Crown has sufficient
evidence to require a person charged with a crime to stand trial. Subject
to one exception, preliminary inquiries are available to an accused’s who is to
be tried in the Superior Court and who has requested one. The Superior
Court generally only tries the most serious criminal offences.
To the lay person, a preliminary inquiry
can look like a trial. Even a lawyer walking into a preliminary inquiry
may not be able to tell, at least initially, that he/she has stumbled into a
preliminary inquiry and not a trial. Preliminary inquiries occur before a judge
(not of the Superior Court, but of the provincial court); witnesses give their
evidence under oath and are subject to cross-examination by opposing counsel.
The test to commit an accused to trial
(that is, to require an accused to stand trial) is not proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is much lower: is there evidence upon which a
reasonable and properly instructed jury could convict. Since 2002,
parties can agree to limit the scope of a preliminary inquiry, a change that
introduced greater flexibility into preliminary inquiries and (as our courts
have recognized) promoted fair and expeditious inquiries.
Where it is clear that the Crown will meet
the evidentiary burden for committal, the accused will sometimes concede committal
to trial and use the preliminary inquiry as an opportunity to cross-examine key
Crown witnesses. In such instances, the preliminary inquiry becomes,
primarily, a forum for witness discovery.
Certainly, the incidental function of the
preliminary inquiry as a discovery mechanism has lost much of the relevance it
once historically held, given an accused’s right under the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms to the disclosure of all material information in the
Crown’s possession, unless the evidence is privileged or plainly
irrelevant. The Crown’s disclosure obligations under
the Charter do not extend to
producing a witness for discovery.
While the disclosure obligations
imposed on the Crown make the preliminary inquiry less important as a forum for
disclosure of the Crown’s case against the accused, the constitutional
principle that evidence should be made available to the defence if there is a
possibility that non-disclosure will impair the accused’s right to make full
answer and defence, by extension, would seem to direct the justice presiding at
the preliminary inquiry to ensure that the defence is given the widest latitude
in obtaining disclosure during the course of the preliminary inquiry.
While preliminary inquiries may lack the
relevance they once held, for the accused they have retained their importance
as a forum for witness discovery.
When Bill C-75 becomes law, for all but
those facing the most grievous type of crimes—those with maximum sentences of
life imprisonment: murder, aggravated sexual assault, aircraft hijacking,
etc.—the discovery of Crown witnesses becomes significantly curtailed.
The preliminary inquiry is not the stage
at which the guilt of the accused or the appropriate sanction is
determined. Since the accused continues to be presumed innocent and
retains the right to make full answer and defence, dispensing with the
screening process therefore does not result in a deprivation of fundamental
justice. While a preliminary inquiry may allow an accused to test the credibility
of witnesses and better appreciate the Crown’s evidence such incidental
benefits do not give rise to a constitutional right to this proceeding. Preliminary inquiries may support the
accused’s right to make full answer and defence, but they are not a required
aspect of that right.
In my opinion, justice is better served
with preliminary inquiries than without them.
Witnesses will sometimes commit themselves
to a version of events at the preliminary inquiry inconsistent with the
testimony they later give at trial. There may be various reasons for
this, but where such reasons implicate the credibility of the witness or the
reliability of the witness’s evidence, the revelation of such advances the
truth-seeking function of the trial process.
Based on my experience, I can say with
almost certainty that as a result of the curtailment of preliminary inquiries
more accused persons are going to be convicted of criminal offences where they
would have been acquitted. While you may think that is a good thing—if you
accept that most accused persons committed the offences for which they are
being prosecuted—it also means that the Crown will be able to meet the standard
of proof for conviction (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) where it otherwise
wouldn’t have been able to and for the singular reason that its witnesses were
not subject to more extensive cross-examination of their evidence.
And that cannot be a good thing.
Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group (Al rights reserved to the author).
Comments
Post a Comment