Sentences with phrase «crown at a criminal trial»

This is because the «burden of proof» in a criminal trial is different than in a civil trial: even if the Crown at a criminal trial could not prove that an assault occurred «beyond a reasonable doubt» (which is an extremely difficult threshold to meet), we may still be able to prove that it occurred on a «balance of probabilities» (which means that there is a greater than 50 % chance that the assault occurred).

Not exact matches

For greater detail as to how this «trial penalty» system works, see: (1) «The Triumph of Plea Bargaining,» (2011), 85 Criminal Reports (6th) 29; and, (2) «Plea Bargaining Is Sentencing,» (2009) 14 Canadian Criminal Law Review 55, particularly this exchange of comments between a Superior Court Justice and the Crown, which clearly shows the presumptive power given the Crown's sentencing recommendations (at p. 59):

He had also achieved great amounts of success that included securing an acquittal at trial for a client charged with possessing a controlled substance, obtaining a discharge for a client charged with domestic assault when the Crown wanted a conviction and permanent criminal record, and drafting an appeal factum that resulted in the overturning of a conviction for possession of marijuana on grounds that the client's Charter right to speak to a lawyer was violated.

Kelly Dawson, Criminal Trial Lawyers Association president and managing partner at Dawson Duckett Shaigec & Garcia Barristers in Edmonton, says he does «believe and accept that the Crown prosecution service is under - resourced and has been for some time,» though he says he can't comment to the severity of the issue.

I have frequently marvelled at some of the outrageous things I have seen defendants and complainants say and do but often forgotten in the rich cast of characters that populate a criminal trial is the crown witness.

Not being a criminal lawyer, I can't use my own experiences to square those two accounts (and, admittedly, my exposure to crowns is Toronto - centric, experiences may vary elsewhere — based on recent events, I'd have concerns about the Alberta courts), but the fact that certain proponents of the critical narrative characterized Marie Henein's masterful conduct of the Ghomeshi trial as a case of «whacking» the accused (rather than the complainant's «whacking» the crown) did nothing to enhance the credibility of that narrative (and, if nothing else, suggests that your construction of the «critical narrative» is not at all a straw man).

At trial, the judge acquitted him, ruling that horse racing is not a «game» within the meaning of the Criminal Code, and that the Crown had failed to prove that anyone relied on his injecting or not injecting the horse with the drug.

A 30 % reduction in fees for Very High Cost Cases has led to a boycott by criminal barristers, which resulted in the high - profile stay of a multi-defendant fraud trial at Southwark Crown Court last month (R v Crawley).

The Criminal Code requires the Crown, where it seeks to enter a certificate of analyses of breath samples as evidence at trial, to prove that a copy of the certificate was given to the accused along with notice of the Crown's intention to rely upon the analyses: Criminal Code, s. 258 (7).

Many junior criminal lawyers in Alberta think that a stay of proceedings is a normal way for a Crown Attorney to terminate a prosecution before verdict at trial.

He described... «the general power of the judge (which existed at common law and is enshrined in section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) to exclude any evidence relied on by the Crown... if its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the trial that it ought not to be admitted».»

After gaining his higher rights in 2011, Robert has regularly conducted trials at the Crown Court and defended clients in respect of a full range of criminal cases from violent and sexual offences to fraud and serious and complex trafficking and drug conspiracies.

[82] At the outset of trial, the Crown submitted reliance upon exigent circumstances, including s. 529.3 of the Criminal Code, as the authority for Const.

The provision would extend the powers and rights of audience of DCWs by enabling them to conduct: - summary trials in magistrates» courts; - certain proceedings in magistrates» courts, including proceedings relating to offences triable only on indictment by a judge and jury at the crown court; - applications and other proceedings relating to «preventative civil orders» such as anti-social behaviour orders; and - certain proceedings (other than criminal proceedings) assigned to the director of public prosecutions by the attorney general under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s 3 (2)(g).