Trials as a social ritual

What is the role of the police

to initiate proceedings (to get someone into court)

How are the police able to investigate

 they have more power because they can get a warrant (search and seize) but when they get a warrant they have to go to a court to obtain it, court must oversee it 

can issue a summons or court appearance or they make an arrest with or without a warrant 

What are the two main reasons the police can arrest

1. Identity reason:

   • If the police don’t know who the person is, they can arrest them to find out their identity.

   • This is important so they can contact or locate the person later, especially if the person needs to appear in court.

   • If the police already know who you are (for example, you gave them a valid ID), then this reason for arrest doesn’t apply.

2. Evidence and safety reason:

   • Police can arrest someone to protect evidence (so it doesn’t get destroyed or tampered with).

   • They can also arrest someone to stop them from committing more crimes while the investigation is ongoing.

Arrest

taking physical control of someone, touching unless words of arrest and the person submits 

S 494 (1)

• Any one may arrest without warrant

  • (a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

  • (b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

    • (i) has committed a criminal offence, and

    • (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

S 495

police can arrest someone who has committed an indictable offense, don’t have to catch them in the act

-also can arrest someone he finds committing a criminal offense (all of them)

-reasonable grounds to believe that someone is about to commit an indictable offense 

-arrest when breaching peace (drunk in public)

-reasonable grounds that there is a warrant outstanding against you 

Crime

a prohibition, penalty and behaviour that injures the public or constitutes a public evil

State vs accused 

Indictable offense

serious offenses 

-due process protection 

-lot of liberty at stake 

Summary conviction offenses

less serious 

-quick

-less liberty at stake 

-max penalty is 5k or 2yrs less a day in jail 

dual/hybrid offenses

-either indictable or summary offense 

-crown decides

Quasi criminal offenses

- prohibition and penalty 

What are the main reasons to keep someone in custody?

1. They don’t have ID → Police don’t know who they are and can’t be sure they’ll show up to court.

2. To stop an ongoing problem → The person might keep causing trouble or committing crimes if released right away.

3. To protect evidence → Police need to make sure the person doesn’t destroy, hide, or interfere with evidence.

4. They’ve failed to appear in court before → The person has a history of not showing up, so police can’t trust them to come next time.

What can a police give you to make sure you show up to court

 

Then Police can give out summons, appearance notice, this is the police initiating the person in court or make person sign a promise to come to court or recognizang/surety  goes up to 500 dollars (can be any amount no more than 500) can't apply conditions, you have to prove you have money or property equal to that amount, less than 500 dollars and promise to appear in court and promise if you fail to appear the court can ask you to pay the money 

Bias against people without money and homeless 

Court never asks you to pay

If you are detained, within 24 hours you have to be brought before a court for a bail hearing

3 grounds 

-release you unless one of these grounds are in play

-not release you if they can’t id you 

Primary ground → Make sure you’ll appear in court

• The main reason to keep someone in custody is if there’s a risk they won’t show up for their court date.

• Example: They’ve missed court before, or police don’t know their real identity.

Secondary ground → Prevent interference or reoffending

• The person might tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or commit another crime if released.

• Basically, they might interfere with justice or be a danger to the public if let go.

Tertiary ground → Maintain public confidence in justice

• Even if someone isn’t a flight risk or a danger, the court can still keep them in custody if releasing them would shock the public or harm trust in the justice system.

• Example: If someone commits a very serious crime and is released right away, people might lose faith in the fairness of the justice system.

 recognizance

Courts can issue a recognizance to any amount meaning promise to show up to court and follow certain conditions.

The court can set any amount of money as part of that promise — but you don’t actually pay it unless you break the conditions.

Right to ask for assurity

• someone else not the accused who says yes i can prove i have the money or to supervise the person to show up to court

•  if they don't then they would pay, you don’t have to pay but pledge

Courts can impose conditions

• The court can give you rules you must follow while you’re out on bail.

• Example: You must stay away from certain people or places, follow a curfew, or not use drugs/alcohol.

• If you don’t follow those conditions, you can be charged with “failing to comply.”

If court decides not to release you, it’s called a detention order

• That means the judge decided you have to stay in custody (you’re “detained”).

• But you have the right to a bail review — meaning you can appeal that decision to a higher court to try to get released.

Inquisitorial system /civil law (europe, asia, africa)

-based on a code, a priori-determine the crimes in advance 

-role of the criminal justice system is to establish the facts, truth of what happened

-role of trial judge is to investigate, manages/directs the work of the police and the prosecutors,  

-preferance for documentary evidence 

-more reliance on experts 

-all evidence is admitted 

-presumption of guilt 

-accused can have a trial to prove innocence

-burden of proof on defense 

-better to punish 9 innocent people than to let 1 guilty person go 

Adversarial system/common law (britain, north america, australia)

-post de facto system- don’t create rules till stuff happens, how can we fix it in ways that are consistent with what we’ve done in the past  

-role of the criminal justice system is to protect rights of citizens from MOUF
-since people are rational the truth is most likely to emerge if each party do their own investigation 

-present the two sides of the story to the trial judge 

-crown attorney and defense are on opposite sides and present their side to the TJ

-judge is neutral arbiter 

-preference is for viva voca evidence/live story telling 

-experts are regular witnesses 

-due process protects rights so only relevant evidence is admitted 

-innocent until proven guilty 

-burden of proof crown attorney 

-better to let 9 guilty people go than to punish 1 innocent person