During a criminal trial, the defence can choose to admit certain facts alleged by the prosecution. This is never required, but when used strategically, it can help shape how a jury sees the case.
While preparing for a criminal trial, the accused and their criminal defence lawyer will receive the prosecution’s case against them. Before or during the trial, the defence may choose to formally admit that some of the facts alleged by the Crown are true.
This is entirely voluntary. Unlike civil trials, there is absolutely no obligation to admit anything in a criminal trial. The decision rests with the accused person, acting on the advice of their lawyer.
What the Criminal Code Says
Section 655 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that “where an accused is on trial for an indictable offence, he or his counsel may admit any fact alleged against him for the purpose of dispensing with proof thereof.”
The section refers to indictable offences, but the courts have determined it also applies to summary offences. When the defence makes a formal admission, the Crown is relieved of the obligation to tender evidence to prove that particular fact. The admission itself becomes proof of the fact admitted.
One important limitation. The defendant can only admit to allegations made by the prosecution. In Castellani v. R., the court ruled that the defence cannot suggest certain facts and then admit to them. An admission requires two parties: one who makes the allegation and one who admits it.
Why the Defence Would Admit Facts
The primary question is always whether the admission is in the accused person’s best interest. But beyond that threshold, there are strategic reasons to consider.
Formal admissions can build credibility with the jury. If the defence concedes facts that are not genuinely in dispute, it signals to the jury that the defence is being straightforward. This can make the defence’s position on the facts that are in dispute more persuasive.
Admissions can also narrow the issues before the jury. Instead of the Crown spending time proving facts that no one is contesting, the trial focuses on what actually matters to the outcome. This keeps the jury’s attention where the defence wants it.
How Formal Admissions Should Be Made
Several principles govern how admissions are made. An admission of fact should be clear, unambiguous, precise, and unequivocal.
It helps to include a statement about how the admission relates to the defence’s legal position and theory of the case. The court should understand the effect of the admission.
One point that matters: the admission should acknowledge certain facts alleged by the prosecution, but it does not need to include what inferences can be drawn from those facts. This allows the defence to admit certain things while still arguing about what those facts actually mean. Admitting that the accused was present at a location is not the same as admitting they committed the offence.
Admissions can be made orally or in writing. Written admissions are preferable. They are usually better thought out, clearer, and easier for the court to reference later.
How Admissions Carry Over Between Trials
In R. v. Baksh, the court addressed what happens when formal admissions from one trial come up in a subsequent proceeding.
Baksh was charged with abducting a child. At his first trial, the defence produced a written document called an Agreed Statement of Facts, which listed facts alleged by the Crown and admitted by the defence. That trial ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach a verdict.
At the second trial, the Crown sought to introduce the Agreed Statement of Facts from the first trial. The judge ruled the prior admissions were admissible at the second trial. But the judge also found that formal admissions are only binding for the purpose of the particular case in which they are made.
The result: the Agreed Statement of Facts was admitted as evidence at the new trial, but it was no longer binding. The accused was entitled to lead evidence to explain or contradict the previous admissions.
This is an important distinction. Admissions made at one trial do not automatically lock the defence into the same position at a future trial.
Admissions Require the Accused Person’s Consent
This is not a decision a lawyer makes alone. If a criminal defence lawyer makes a formal admission against the wishes of their client, or without the client’s knowledge, that lawyer could face disciplinary action from the Law Society of Ontario.
Formal admissions must be made with the fully informed consent of the accused. The lawyer advises on whether an admission is strategically beneficial. The accused decides whether to make it.
If You Are Facing a Criminal Trial
Formal admissions are one tool in a larger defence strategy. When used carefully, they can strengthen a case. When used carelessly, they can give the Crown something it did not have. The decision to admit or contest any fact should come from a thorough assessment of the evidence, the charges, and the theory of the defence.
Contact Pyzer Criminal Lawyers for a free consultation to discuss your case.
This article provides general legal information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Laws and their interpretation may change, and the application of law to specific circumstances requires professional legal assessment. If you have questions about a legal matter, please contact us for a free consultation.
