The Defense Counsel was called Chris Churchill
Nature of the Matter: Criminal Case
What Happened: A Description
The accused in this case had been charged with the offenses of possession of stolen property and stolen identity or identity theft. Spitney had been found in possession of a social insurance card that did not belong to him and a boat operations license which he was at pains to explain where he had got it. From the conversations I had with both the Prosecuting Counsel for the Crown and the Defense Counsel for the accused, the suspect admitted having committed these crimes and was thus sentenced by the judge to serve 45 days behind bars. However, as it came out, he was only to serve two-thirds of these days, that is 30 days. He was also top pay a fine of CAD$ 200. The relevant law applicable in this case is the Criminal Code Canada at sections 354 and 355.
According to the Defense Counsel, Mr. Churchill, in arriving at this decision, the judge considered several mitigating and extenuating circumstances. These factors include the nature of the crime, the impact of the offense on the victim and the personal conditions of the accused. However, the judge has to be convinced that the sentence proposed or agreed upon by the Prosecutor and Defense Lawyer is an appropriate one as the final verdict rests with the magistrate.
Observations
While at the court, I observed that in criminal cases, unlike civil matters, names of parties are different. For example, the party on whose behalf the State has brought the case before the court goes by the title “the victim or complainant” while the person at fault is referred to as the “accused”. This applies before they admit any guilt but after their guilt is confirmed, they are known as the “defendant.” Also, I noticed that the Prosecutor is only required to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases where they deny having committed the crime, and this is at trial. This standard of proof does not apply during the sentencing process. This is in line with the description of thresholds in criminal cases as given by Martin and Story (2013) in their work. Moreover, as Boyd (2010) states, I observed that the terms mens rea and actus rea are the essential elements of proving such crimes.
References
Boyd, N. (2010).Canadian law: An introduction. Toronto: Nelson Education.
Canadian Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46)
Martin, J., & Storey, T. (2013). Unlocking criminal law. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon & New York: Routledge.
