13 Sep 2021


Why would someone give up their right to a trial by pleading guilty, on the basis of an agreement with the prosecutor, which a judge can easily set aside and not respect? The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision in anthony-Cook promotes certainty of outcome, and now people who enter into plea agreements can have confidence that a judge who, for one reason or another, does not like the common judgment must almost always follow, unless the proposed judgment is so gentle that it would send a message, that the criminal justice system has collapsed. This is a very high threshold and only in extreme and rare circumstances will a judge now be able to ignore a well-negotiated plea. The long-term goal is to increase the efficiency of criminal justice. In other cases, a judge can only accept certain conditions of the agreement, while refusing other conditions, such as . B the proposed sentence. This is called partially negotiated advocacy. If the judge sympathizes with the accused`s case or feels that he or she has a strong defence, he or she may propose that the accused enter into a plea without negotiating an agreement. This may lead to a lower rate than described in the agreement. Or the judge feels like they don`t have enough information to make a decision. You can defer the decision until they have verified the submission report.

In the application, if the conditional suspension of the sentence provided for in Articles 163 and 163 of the Italian Criminal Code could be applied, the accused could make the application for the suspension subject; If the judge refuses the suspension, the hearing is refused. If the prosecutor and the accused have reached an agreement, the proposal is submitted to the judge who may refuse or accept the pleading. The judge has the power to accept or reject a pleading. They will take into consideration the nature of the charges and the criminal record of the accused, if any, as well as the circumstances of the case. Other factors that a judge may consider are the interests of the public, for example. B whether the proposed judgment would guarantee the security of the Community. You can consider the interests of the victim, although the victim does not have to approve the plea. All evidence of the character of the accused may be relevant to the judge. In cases such as a car collision involving possible civil liability against the defendant, the defendant may agree to plead “no challenge” or “guilty with a civil reservation, which is essentially an admission of guilt without admitting civil liability. Plea Bargaining was introduced in Japan in June 2018. The first plea bargaining case under this system, in July 2018, involved allegations of corruption at Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems in Thailand.

[58] The second case was an agreement reached in November 2018 to obtain evidence of a violation of accounting and securities legislation against Nissan executives Carlos Ghosn and Greg Kelly. [59] But what happens if a judge refuses to “follow” the joint recommendation for sentencing and instead imposes a significantly different and harsher sentence than the one both lawyers accepted? Unlike in many U.S. states where a plea is final and the judge has no discretion to change the negotiated sentence, in Canada a judge is not bound by a joint recommendation and, in law, an admission of guilt is not valid, unless the accused person is aware that the judge is not bound by an agreement between the defense and the prosecutor by the inclusion of advocacy (see section 606 (b) (iii) of the B. the Criminal Code). . . . .

Comments are closed.