Jurisdiction, a term derived from the Latin words 'Juris' meaning law and 'dicere' meaning to speak, refers to the power bestowed upon courts to handle and make decisions on legal matters. This authority extends not only to the nature of the case but also to the geographical area of its applicability.
In essence, jurisdiction grants the court the ability to handle a specific offence at a specific time. Proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are considered a nullity, treating it as if it never took place. For a court to acquire jurisdiction, three preconditions must be met.
The first precondition is the presence of a charging document before the court. It could be referred to as the information or indictment. The information is a document that lays out formal accusations against the accused. The necessity of the charging document in the court is crucial and integral to the process, as it forms the basis of the charges that the accused must answer to.
This is followed by the requirement for the Crown to validate the charges mentioned in the document. There must be a direct correlation between the information presented and the evidence that the prosecution puts forward in court. This means that if there is any discrepancy between the evidence and the charges made in the information, it could potentially provide a defence to the charges. For instance, if the information charges the accused with the possession of marijuana, the Crown must prove that the accused was indeed in possession of marijuana. In a scenario where the accused was found to possess cocaine instead, the Crown's inability to prove the initial charges of marijuana possession, as mentioned in the information, indicates a failure on their part.
However, the charges listed in the document need not be immutable. If they are phrased incorrectly, the Crown has the provision to apply for a remedy of amendment. This empowers the Crown to modify the charges in the information so that they better align with the actual events of the case. It's important to note that the Crown can implement these amendments at any stage before the trial - but the amendment cannot bring about any prejudice to the accused, or hinder their ability to fully answer and defend the charge.
In other words, the Crown can't just amend the information to conform to the facts of the case, but it must ensure that this confirmation doesn't compromise the rights of the defendant. This balance is necessary to ensure a fair trial. The ultimate responsibility for proving the charges in the information lies with the Crown - if it is unable to do this effectively, the accused will not be convicted.
What happens if you attend court without any information? In such scenarios, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter. If at your first appearance, you fail to find your name on the docket or don't have information charging you before the court, the court loses jurisdiction. It's crucial to verify the date of your first appearance to avoid any confusion.
To prove your attendance in court when no information was present, you might need the clerk of the court to endorse your summons with the date of the appearance. This might serve as a necessary proof in the future. Ensuring your appearance in court on the right date when you're supposed to, even when there's no information before the court, is of utmost importance.
The ability for the court to attain and maintain jurisdiction requires the physical presence of the accused in court as a second precondition. The summons or some other legal process can compel the accused to attend court. In certain situations, if the documentation compelling attendance is flawed, addressing this deficit can be made by the mere presence of the accused in court. If the accused isn't lawfully compelled to attend the court, the court will forfeit its jurisdiction over the person, regardless of the presence of the documentation.
Errors like a mistake or clerical error in the document which compels the accused's attendance can be rectified easily. The court can issue a fresh process to enforce the accused's attendance. Voluntary attendance by the accused can also amend this issue, as his/her attendance bestows authority (jurisdiction) on the court.
The accused is not required to personally appear all the time. For instance, if the accused is charged with a summary offence, a lawyer or an agent can appear on his or her behalf. The situation changes if the accused is charged with a hybrid offence. Such offences are considered indictable until the Crown decides on the course of action. If the accused is charged with such an offence, personal appearance in court is mandatory.
However, there were amendments to the Criminal Code in July 2002 that allow a lawyer or an articling student to appear on behalf of the accused for any charge, provided a 'designation' is filed with the court. This provision stipulates that the person in question would not have to personally attend a first appearance or set date. Despite this, personal appearance at the trial remains a requirement.
The final jurisdictional requirement is embedded in the action that the court must take on the charge. Something needs to happen when both the accused and the information are in court. Undertaking action is crucial to prevent the information from becoming null and void if the court fails to act. Section 485.1 of the Criminal Code attests to this principle. The court does not lose jurisdiction over the offence due to any failure in exercising that jurisdiction at a certain period or due to non-compliance with any provision of the Act concerning adjournments or remands.
The matter of being charged with a criminal offence can be stressful. Engaging a professional entity like Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers can help alleviate some of this stress. By doing so, you could potentially spare yourself the inconvenience of court appearances.