Search results
In 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a trial judge sitting without a jury in a criminal case has a duty to give reasons for the conviction or acquittal of an accused. Since 2002, decisions of Canadian appellate courts have given this duty
- General Principles
- Control Over Trial Process
- Limiting Evidence
- Independent Research of The Judge
- Judge Bound to Proceedings
- Communications with Counsel Out of Court
- Duty to Make A Record
- Maintaining Order
- Misc Powers
- Judicial Decisions
An accused person is entitled to a Constitutional right to an impartial trier-of-fact. A trial judge has a duty to ensure that the trial is fair and there are no miscarriage of justice. The trial judge is more than just an umpire but "is not to enter the arena and appear to take on the role of an advocate". Adversarial System Our criminal justice s...
A criminal trial court to "control its process" is a fundamental value of the criminal justice system".A judge has "considerable" powers to intervene in a criminal trial to manage the proceedings. A judge is authorized to make orders "necessary to ensure an orderly trial, without which the administration of justice risks being ...thrown into disrep...
The judge is required to listen to evidence that "advances the work of the court". He or she cannot be required to listen to irrelevant or pointless evidence.The judge may even disallow the submission of non-relevant evidence. The judge has an obligation to track the admission of evidence to ensure that the record is restricted to what is admissibl...
A judge should not enter "into the fray" by doing self-directed research that puts them in a role of being "advocate, witness and judge". A judge can only rely on social studies, literature or scientific reports after they have been tested by the parties. It is not inappropriate to use academic articles merely to outline the generally understood fe...
Loss of Judge During Proceedings
1. Loss of Judge During Proceedings
Ex parte communications (i.e. communications in absence of one of the parties) concerning an ongoing proceedings should be avoided. It is a rule that relates to the "public perception of fairness within the administration of justice". It also preserves "confidence of the public in the impartiality of the judiciary and thereby in the administration ...
Under Part XX of the Code, there is a duty upon the court to keep a record of every arraignment and all proceedings after the arraignment.
This section permits a judge to make an order of contemptfor: 1. persistent refusal of accused to stand on entry of the presiding judge. 2. the use of recording devices in the court against the order of the judge. 3. the high degree of intoxication of the accused appearing at trial This section cannotbe used to order the mode of dress of counsel. O...
The judge does not have the power to order that counsel not communicate with a witness who is not in the middle of testimony. The rules of contempt of court and Professional Conduct are the only limitations on counsel's right to speak with witnesses and clients in court. Execution of Orders Under s. 3.1 of the Code, any order made by any type of ju...
When drafting a decision, judges are expected to articulate the contested elements of the offence and give each element "dedicated attention" in their analysis. Rulings and Orders The decision to exercise discretion and require the reading of charges despite waiver, is not an order but is a ruling that can be reviewed on certiorari.
Oct 8, 2008 · The Court gave three rationales for why trial judges must give reasons: (1) to explain to the affected parties why the decision was made; (2) to provide public accountability; and (3) to permit effective review by appellate courts.
Judges must render a fair decision when there is a conflict between two parties. Their decisions are made on the basis of the facts and evidence presented to them, decisions previously rendered by other Canadian courts, and according to the law applicable to the situation.
Jan 15, 2024 · Trial judges are responsible for presiding over cases at the trial level. They listen to evidence, assess credibility, and make findings of fact. Trial judges are the first to interpret and apply the law to a particular case. Appellate judges, on the other hand, review decisions made by trial judges. They do not hear new evidence; instead, they ...
A trial is a process by which a judge attempts to ascertain the truth in order to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. The process does not go so far as to determine "actual innocence" as the standard of proof a trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt and does not evaluate degrees of acquittal and is not the ultimate purpose of criminal law.
People also ask
What does a trial judge do?
What is the difference between a trial judge and an appellate judge?
What should a trial judge consider?
Does a trial judge have a duty to give reasons?
What rights does a trial judge have?
What is a trial and how does it work?
Feb 9, 2023 · Any sentence must be in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. The trial judge must respect the minimum, and maximum sentences set out in the Code and consider sentences appeal courts have handed down in similar cases. The sentence must also be proportional to the offender’s degree of responsibility.
