Apopka bail bonds Apopka fl -The Functions of a Bail Bond in Miami Florida

 

In this article, we will talk about the main bond companies in Mexico and some tips that you should consider when hiring a bond, but before beginning to deepen the subject if you still do not know what a bond is, we recommend that you read the article of our blog titled ” What is a bond? “

 

The Functions of a Bail Bond in Miami Florida

Contact a Bail Bond Specialist (Bail Bond Agent ), as it is Douglas Phillips since according to your case we offer you a better bond for you making a comparison between the main bond companies in Miami Florida.

Always be aware that you are entrenched and never believe that bail is the solution to your problems or your signed contract.

Respect and fulfill the contract.

Do you need to contact the BondCliff’ bailbonds Miami Company? Contact us!

 

What is a bond?

We have already commented previously that a bond is a contract acquired by two parties by which a Bonding Institution duly authorized by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (guarantor), undertakes to fulfill a different type of obligation with a creditor (beneficiary) in case the debtor (guarantor) does not do so. The bond can be contracted by a physical or moral person.

 

What is the procedure to hire a bond?

The contracting procedures depend on the type of contract that is to be carried out, the institution that is hired, the characteristics of the person who wishes to acquire it, the agreements that are made within the policy, as well as the economic context under which develops the sector. That is why it must be correctly defined what and how such a contract will be carried out in a clear and informed manner, due to the diversity of the contracts, it is recommended to go to the main bondholders in Mexico, to an agent specialized in the sale of bonds or the National Insurance and Bonding Commission.

 

Rights of a person in case of arrest or detention

A person who is “arrested” or detained by a police officer is deprived of his liberty. She then undergoes physical or psychological stress. That person therefore enjoys certain rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

If the police do not respect the rights of the arrested or detained person, evidence obtained against them at the time of arrest or detention may be refused at trial.

Here are some of these fundamental rights.

 

The right to know the reasons for arrest or detention

A person arrested or detained has the immediate right to know why the police put him under arrest or detention. The police must explain to him in plain language the nature of the behavior that is blamed on him.

This information is intended to help him see the seriousness of the situation. She can then make an informed decision about her other rights. For example, she may decide to speak to a lawyer and remain silent with the police.

 

The right to talk to a lawyer

 The right to talk to a lawyer

The right to speak to a lawyer is a fundamental right that allows anyone arrested or detained to consult a lawyer for advice on their rights and obligations. This right may allow him to know, among other things, the steps that will follow the arrest and to obtain advice on whether or not to remain silent in the face of the police.

The police must allow the arrested or detained person to exercise his right to speak to a lawyer . Immediately after arrest or detention, police officers must comply with the following rules:

  • inform the arrested or detained person of his right to speak to the lawyer of his choice;
  • help him in his efforts to find a lawyer. For example, give him access to a phone or allow him to consult a phone book;
  • inform her that she can use the free services of a legal aid lawyer, if needed, and the existence of 24-hour duty counsel plans offering free telephone services;
  • allow her to speak privately with her lawyer (that is, in a room where she can speak without being heard); and
  • stop questioning her and do not attempt to extract information from her until she has had a reasonable opportunity to speak to a lawyer.

In addition, the person arrested or detained may choose his lawyer. On the other hand, if the lawyer is not available within a reasonable time, the police must allow the person to speak to another lawyer. If the person refuses to consult another lawyer despite the unavailability of the lawyer that she has chosen, the police can continue their interrogation.

In general, the arrested or detained person has the right to consult a lawyer once. However, the police must allow her to consult a lawyer more than once if it is necessary for her to actually exercise her right. This is the case, for example, if:

  • the lawyer contacted was unable to advise her;
  • the situation has changed and the person is then suspected of a more serious offense (eg drug trafficking rather than possession of drugs);
  • police want to use new investigative methods (eg a lie detector).

The right to speak to a lawyer does not include the right to have his lawyer present with him during the interrogation with the police. However, this may be possible if all parties agree.

An arrested or detained person may also waive their right to speak to a lawyer. This choice must be made in full knowledge of the facts . For the person with a mental disability (also called “developmental disability”), police must ensure that they have the ability to give up. If the person waives the right to speak to a lawyer without having the capacity, the evidence may not be available at trial.

 

The right to remain silent during arrest or detention

 The right to remain silent during arrest or detention

When someone is arrested or detained, they have the right to remain silent. The police even have the obligation to inform the person of this right.

This right exists to prevent a person from being harmed by helping the police. As a general rule, the fact that an arrested or detained person chooses to remain silent, in whole or in part, should not be interpreted as an indication of his guilt. In Canada, a person is presumed innocent as long as the evidence does not allow a judge to convict.

An arrested or detained person who knows and understands his or her right to remain silent may still decide to voluntarily speak to the police. In such a case, what she says to the police can be used against her at the trial.

On the other hand, if the police do not respect this right, the evidence obtained at the time of arrest or detention may not be available at trial. This is also the case for the evidence collected against a person with a mental disability, if the person has waived their right to silence when they did not have the capacity.

Can bail be arbitrated by the police officer on crimes involving domestic and family violence against women?

Although Federal Law no. 11.340 / 2006 [2] has expanded the protection of women against gender violence, practiced in the domestic and family spheres, we have that everyday forensic presents us with unusual situations, where we clearly see the disrespect to the most basic rights of women.

I was recently surprised in the corridors of the forum, when I closed the forensic file, by a woman who carried in her arms a child of tender age (three months) and in her body the marks of the brutality that was imposed on her. The bruises and erythema on the face, shoulder, arms and back have already allowed a glimpse of what happened.

After the meeting had taken place, I found that she had been the victim of repeated assaults perpetrated by her companion, with whom she had three children in common, and on behalf of whom she endured for many years the tortures that were cowardly inflicted upon her.

In a brief summary of what happened, it is noted that the night before, again impelled by alcohol, his companion physically assaulted her, causing several injuries. Discontented with the regrettable situation to which she was subjugated, she decided to end the cycle of violence, triggering, for the first time, the military police.

Conducted to the police station was drawn the flagrant and arbitrated bail for the aggressor, who was released immediately after collecting the value in a notary. Further aggravating the situation of vulnerability of this poor woman, the defendant returned home and, arriving before the victim, prevented her entry, leaving her on public roads, only in the clothes she wore and in the company of her new offspring.

When this fact became known to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the pertinent legal measures were taken, and the offender was removed from the conjugal home, thus ensuring that the victim had the minimum respect for the rights provided for in Federal Law 11,340 / 2016.

In addition to the endless misunderstandings in this case, it is worth asking if the police authority acted well in arbitrating bail to the assessed.

With the reform undertaken by Law no. 12,403 / 2011, the police authority has the possibility of arbitrating bail in cases of infraction whose deprivation of liberty does not exceed four years, pursuant to art. 322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In criminal offenses with a penalty greater than this amount, the judge shall decide within 48 (forty eight) hours.

It occurs that in the great majority of offenses perpetrated against women in the domestic and family environment, the penalty does not exceed the level of four years. This is reflected, for example, in the secondary precepts of threatened crimes (article 147 of the Penal Code: Penalty – imprisonment of one to six months or a fine), insult (article 140 of Penal Code: Penalty – detention of one to six months or a fine) and personal injury (article 129, § 9, CP: Penalty – detention from three months to three years).

In this context, it is asked : Would the Delegate be obliged to grant bail in these cases?

In this context, it is asked : Would the Delegate be obliged to grant bail in these cases?

 

The negative answer is necessary.

According to the provisions of art. 324 of the CPP, no guarantee will be granted when the reasons authorizing the execution of the preventive custody are present (article 312).

As is the case, one of the hypotheses authorizing the adoption of protective custody is precisely the crime involving domestic and family violence against women, children, adolescents, the elderly, the sick or people with disabilities, in order to guarantee the implementation of urgent protective measures.

In this way, the police authority may deny bail based on its position, under the terms of art. 324, subsection IV, cc art. 313, subsection III, cc art. 312, all of the CPP, and must demonstrate the presence of one of the grounds for ordering custody custody.

Regarding this, there are no major problems. The reverse situation, however, is not peaceful.

Facing the above situation, could the police officer have bailed out the assessed party?

Part of the doctrine maintains that it is not possible for the police authority to arbitrate bail in cases that involve domestic and family violence against women, since this hypothesis would allow for the enactment of preventive custody (article 313, item III, CPP), and the concession (article 324, item IV, of the CPP).

In this sense, the Permanent Commission to Combat Domestic and Family Violence against Women (COPEVID), created by the National Human Rights Group (GNDH) of the National Council of Attorneys General (CNPG), aims to contribute to the standardization of domestic violence against women, published Statement n. 06 dealing precisely with the impossibility of guarantee, in the following terms:

Impossibility of guarantee

Impossibility of guarantee

Statement No. 06 (006/2011):

In cases of domestic and family violence against women, children, adolescents, the elderly, the sick or persons with disabilities, the granting of bail by the Police Authority is forbidden, considering that this is a situation that authorizes the execution of preventive detention pursuant to article 313, III, CPP. (Approved in the Plenary of the IV Ordinary Meeting of the GNDH of 07/12/2011 and by the Collegiate of the CNPG of 01/19/2012).

The prosecutor Fausto Rodrigues De Lima, in dealing with the subject, considered that the granting of bail by the police authority in cases of domestic violence against women, would represent a usurpation of the jurisdictional function, as transcribed below:

“The delegate is barred from granting bail, so that provisional freedom has once again become a matter of exclusive jurisdiction, with no exceptions, at least with regard to domestic violence.

In fact, the new norm established the possibility of pre-trial detention for all crimes committed in domestic violence, including those detained with detention, by adding the following device to art. 313 of the CPP: IV – if the crime involves domestic and family violence against women, under the terms of the specific law, to ensure the implementation of urgent protective measures.

And, in a redundant and eloquent manner, it has been determined that preventive detention may be ordered or revoked by the judge as many times as necessary, taking into account justifying reasons (article 20).

Indeed, all crimes punishable by detention are now subject to pre-trial detention, under the terms of the aforementioned art. 313, inc. IV, CPP. Even if the accused are not “idle” or already “convicted of felony crime”, they may be arrested by court order. Therefore, no guarantee will be granted if the requirements of pre-trial detention are present (article 324, IV, CPP), an assessment that must be made by the judge, in terms of the aforementioned art. 311 of the CPP. In the absence of these requirements, only the magistrate must release the accused, regardless of the setting of bail, in terms of art. 310, sole paragraph, of the CPP.

Therefore, the legislature returned to the judge the exclusive power to decide on the maintenance of the prison in domestic violence. The new law repudiated both the 1977 system, which allowed the police to arbitrate bail, and that of 1995 (JECrim), which guaranteed freedom with the simple commitment of attendance. Both were not concerned with the integrity of the victims, even because they would have left the judge with the precautionary power to decide whether release was convenient or reckless “(De Lima, 2014).

In the same direction, the prosecutor Jorge Romcy Auad Filho is positioned, in an article prior to the reform promoted by Law 12,403 / 2011, but whose rationale is still maintained:

“Allowing for arbitration of bail by the police authority, in case it is possible to issue a preventive detention, besides causing distortion of the legal system, will still lead to perplexity in contradictory positions, as well as usurpation of the judicial function of the judge.”

“In the cases provided for in Law No. 11,340 / 2006, the granting of provisional release is the exclusive competence of the judicial authority, and the bailiff does not have to file a bail, in view of the judge’s need to investigate in advance the possibility of maintaining the provisional arrest

When eventually granting provisional release to offenders who commit domestic violence crimes, the judges, analyzing the specific case, must condition their release to comply with measures that effectively protect the victim and other family members “(AUAD, 2007).

It should be noted that although art. 313, item III, of the CPP establish among the hypotheses of admissibility of preventive custody cases that “the crime involves domestic and family violence against women… to ensure the execution of urgent protective measures”, its interpretation should be made to the light of the grounds established by art. 312 of the same decree, that is, the execution of a precautionary custody will only be possible if the presence of the guarantee of public order, convenience of criminal investigation and guarantee of application of criminal law is demonstrated.

“In our opinion, item III should be read in conjunction with the content of the caput of art. 3 1 3 of the CPP, which expressly refers to the terms of art. 312 of the Code. Now, if the caput of art. 313 makes reference to the terms of art. 3 1 2 of the CPP, means that even in cases of domestic and family violence against women, children, adolescents, the elderly, the sick or people with disabilities, the enactment of preventive custody is also conditional on demonstrating the need to impose custody to ensure public order, for the convenience of criminal investigation or to ensure the application of criminal law “(LIMA, 2015, p.951).

In view of this, it will not be the mere fact of the crime to be practiced in the domestic and family spheres against the woman who will represent an obstacle to granting bail by the police authority, since item IV of art. 324 of the procedural document establishes that no guarantee will be granted when the reasons authorizing the enactment of preventive custody are present (article 312).

In this sense, there is the lapidary teaching of Renato Brasileiro de Lima who, in supporting the possibility of granting bail by the police authority, teaches:

“If art. 322 of the CPP provides that the police authority may grant bail for criminal offenses whose maximum penalty does not exceed four (4) years, no other requirement can be established for the grant of said benefit, otherwise the violation of the principle of legality. Moreover, the mere fact that a crime is subject to the enactment of preventive detention is not an obstacle to the granting of bail by the police authority. The art. 324, IV, of the CPP, prohibits the granting of bail only when the reasons authorizing the preventive, read, guarantee of public order, economic order, convenience of criminal investigation or guarantee of application of criminal law – notice that the device itself refers to art. 3 1 2 of the CPP – without establishing any relation with the hypotheses of admissibility of the preventive custody provided for in the subsections of art. 313 of the CPP. Therefore, the police authority can not deny bail on the simple argument that the crime was committed in the context of domestic and family violence (CPP, article 3 1 3, III). In addition, it should also demonstrate that there had been non-compliance with the previous protective measure of urgency imposed by the judge and that the permanence of the perpetrator in freedom could, for example, jeopardize the guarantee of public order, given the possibility of repeated conviction (CPP, article 312) “(LIMA, 2015, p.951). the police authority can not deny bail on the simple argument that the crime was committed in the context of domestic and family violence (CPP, article 3 1 3, III). In addition, it should also demonstrate that there had been non-compliance with the previous protective measure of urgency imposed by the judge and that the permanence of the perpetrator in freedom could, for example, jeopardize the guarantee of public order, given the possibility of repeated conviction (CPP, article 312) “(LIMA, 2015, p.951). the police authority can not deny bail on the simple argument that the crime was committed in the context of domestic and family violence (CPP, article 3 1 3, III). In addition, it should also demonstrate that there had been non-compliance with the previous protective measure of urgency imposed by the judge and that the permanence of the perpetrator in freedom could, for example, jeopardize the guarantee of public order, given the possibility of repeated conviction (CPP, article 312) “(LIMA, 2015, p.951).

Judge Augusto Yuzo Jouti, in a specific article on the subject, defends the possibility of bail be arbitrated by the police authority in cases of domestic and family violence against women, arguing that the apparent inconvenience of granting bail police, with subsequent enactment of the arrest preventative by the magistrate, can not be supported by the investigated. The delegate should, in the case of bail arbitration, guarantee police protection to the victim (article 11 of Law 11.340 / 2006).

“Once bail granted by the police delegate, it is incumbent on him to guarantee police protection, according to art. 11 of the Maria da Penha Law. And there is nothing to prevent the Judge of Law – the only competent authority from ordering preventive detention, provided that the police authority or the Public Prosecutor presents concrete elements that indicate their suitability and necessity, in accordance with articles 312 and 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The apparent inconvenience of releasing the prisoner by bail and subsequently arresting him in a preventive manner is not an expression of the law nor can it be borne exclusively by the investigated.

The Code of Criminal Procedure does not expressly prohibit the granting of bail by the police authority, so much so that there is Bill no. 6,008 / 2013, to amend Law no. 11.340 / 2006, in order to assign to the Judge only this examination. As long as there is no legislative change, Article 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code continues to authorize police bail for crimes up to four years, including for crimes involving domestic violence against women “(JOUTI, 2015).

With due respect, the solution presented to conciliate the bail police with the necessary protection to the victim, does not convince. In the first place, it is imperative to expose the insufficiency of the police force to guarantee the protection of the victim. Secondly, since there is no judicial provision that prevents the perpetrator from returning to the conjugal home or from approaching the victim, what would this police protection be like? Should a police officer stay inside the residence, along with an assailant and victim in order to preserve his or her physical integrity? Or should the woman be victimized again, this time being taken from the home while awaiting the deferral of protective measures of urgency?

The logical order of things is reversed by granting freedom to the aggressor in a premature manner, giving the State the duty to protect the victim against any action by the latter prior to the deferral of protective measures of urgency.

Faced with the seriousness of bail arbitration in the case of gender violence, the Joint Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPMI), constituted to investigate situations of violence against women in Brazil, presented Bill no. 6.008 / 2013, in progress in the National Congress, to amend Law 11,340 / 2006 expressly prohibiting the granting of bail by the police authority in cases of domestic and family violence against women, aiming to improve the legal framework that will allow Brazil to maintain at the forefront of the legislative framework.

It should also be noted that the justification presented by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry states that “Art. 324, IV, which prohibits the establishment of bail when the requirements of pre-trial detention are present, already prevents the police authority from obtaining bail in the crimes and situations of art. 313 of the CPP, “although” the justice system has disregarded this command to tolerate the immediate freedom of the aggressors in the police station itself, a fact that has caused the continuation of violence and even the murders of women after the payment of bail by the police. “

“In addition, it adds a mechanism to the CPP to prohibit bail-out by the police authority in cases of domestic and family violence against women, to ensure greater protection for victims at the time and soon after the criminal conflict.

It is a fact that art. 324, IV, which prohibits the establishment of bail when the requirements of pre-trial detention are present, already prevents the police authority from obtaining bail in the crimes and situations of art. 313 of CPP (includes domestic violence in item III), since the analysis of the requirements of pre-trial detention is a matter of judicial jurisdiction. In such cases, it is the judge who must evaluate the case in advance, as determined by art. 310 of the CPP, and may even apply protective measures substitutive of the prison provided for in the Maria da Penha Law. However, the justice system has disregarded this command to tolerate the immediate freedom of the aggressors in the police station itself, a fact that has caused the continuity of the violence and until the murders of women after the payment of bail arbitrated by the police. Like this,[3].

By making a systematic interpretation of the legal system and considering the normative changes, which denote the evolution of the procedural legislation, aiming at giving greater protection to women in situations of vulnerability, it is concluded that making bail arbitration by the police authority a routine practice, to the spirit that guided Law n. 11.340 / 2006, interpreting the changes promoted by said normative document to the detriment of its addressee. This hermeneutical inversion confronts the principles of the prohibition of insufficient state protection and non-retrocession, relegating to forgetfulness the situation of vulnerability of women victims of domestic and family violence.

Therefore, it will be for the magistrate to promote the analysis of the concrete case to decide if the protective measures foreseen in art. 22 of Law 11,340 / 2006, as well as possible precautionary measures different from the prison provided for in art. 319 of the CPP, are adequate and sufficient for the protection of the victim or if the enactment of pre-trial detention is the only measure that proves capable of protecting the physical and psychological integrity of the woman, preventing a repetition of the cycle of violence.

If these prove to be inadequate or insufficient, the magistrate shall convert the prison in flagrante into a preventive, under the terms of art. 310, item II, of the procedural document. Otherwise, it will grant the accused the provisional freedom conditioned to the fulfillment of these diverse measures of the prison.

It happens that until the magistrate promotes the analysis of the urgent protective measures pleaded, at least in theory, one of the foundations of the precautionary custody (public order guarantee [4] ) will be present, being indispensable the maintenance of the prison to guarantee the physical and psychological integrity of the offended person, until the deferment of emergency measures for his benefit, intimidating the aggressor of its content, by virtue of periculum libertatis.

Thus, if there is an application for deferral of urgent protective measures, the police authority is unable to grant the accused the provisional release by means of bail, since it can not replace the judicial authority and understand, for example, that it will suffice to impose on the aggressor the removal of the conjugal home and prohibit her from approaching the offended and her relatives, setting the minimum distance between them and the aggressor, and custody is not necessary.

Such activity is the exclusive responsibility of the judicial authority.

The opposite view will leave the victim in a state of absolute vulnerability, since granting the aggressor freedom before considering the request for urgent protective measures, will allow him to return to the conjugal home, approaching the victim and his relatives, a situation that will further accentuate plus the trauma suffered as a result of the aggressions perpetrated, in addition to jeopardizing the effectiveness of any precautionary measures imposed by the magistrate.

In this context, the possibility of granting bail by the police authority can not be strictly forbidden, but this should be reserved for exceptional cases, where the peculiarities of the case show the absolute need to maintain prudential segregation and the absence of grounds for preventive detention order.

The most routine cases are domestic disputes, often watered by alcohol, where the woman imputs to her cohabitee the practice of the crime of threat, a fact corroborated by witnesses. At the police station, he makes statements and offers representation regarding the crime described in art. 147 of the Criminal Code. Hours later, away from the momentary exaltation that followed the discussion, he returns to the police unit, talks to his companion resuming the relationship and decides to portray himself from the representation.

Imagine that the flagrant is still being drafted, we know that the Police Commissioner can not accept the victim’s retraction, since “in public criminal actions conditioned to the representation of the offended that this Law treats, only the resignation of the representation before the judge, in an audience specially designated for such purpose, before receiving the complaint and hearing the Public Prosecutor’s Office “, pursuant to art. 16 of Law 11,340 / 2006 “.

In this hypothetical situation, when there is no request for an urgent protective measure and there is a withdrawal of the representation, there would be no obstacle to the granting of bail to the assessed by the police authority itself, since the freedom of the latter will not represent any risk, since there will be no measure to be ensured through precautionary segregation.

After these considerations, we present the following solution regarding the granting of bail by the police authority in crimes involving domestic and family violence against women:

As a rule, the police authority should not grant bail in cases of domestic and family violence against women, children, adolescents, the elderly, the sick or persons with disabilities, as it will be for the judicial authority to promote the analysis of the specific case to decide whether measures protective measures set forth in art. 22 of Law 11,340 / 2006, as well as possible precautionary measures different from the prison provided for in art. 319 of the CPP, are adequate and sufficient for the protection of the victim or if the precautionary custody is the only measure able to protect the offended, and the delegate can not replace the Judge in that evaluation.

In exceptional cases, where the peculiarities of the concrete case demonstrate the absolute necessity of maintaining the precautionary segregation (lack of grounds for enactment of preventive detention) and provided that there is no request from the victim for the purpose of granting urgent protective measures, to arbitrate the bond.

Finally, it is concluded that, in the case narrated in the introduction of this article, the police authority was wrong to grant bail to the assessed, victimizing even more that woman already physically and morally flogged, because of the injuries suffered, as well as exposing them to life-threatening circumstances by granting provisional release on bail, before the judge’s assessment of protective measures of urgency [5].

Teens Accused of Crimes: Possible Outcomes

In Canada, they can not be held responsible for crimes. The youth criminal system tries to get rid of the crime.

If your child is caught by the police and is suspected of committing a crime, read this article. You will learn what the law says.

Return to the Community

Return to the Community

The law treats teens suspected of crimes differently than adults. They must still pay for their actions but not in the same way as adults. The law encourages teens suspected of crimes to go back to the community. The law also tries to avoid putting them through a full criminal court case. But in some situations, a teen might have to go to court.

Steps After Being Caught by Police

Steps After Being Caught by Police

What happens after the teens are caught by the police on their situations and the seriousness of the crimes they are accused of.

Parents have an important role in supporting their children throughout the process. To learn more, read our articles Your Child, the Police and You Going to Court With Your Child.

Police Take Extrajudicial Measures

Police Take Extrajudicial Measures

In some cases, the police can decide to do nothing or give the teen a warning. They can also refer to an alternative organization of justice or OJA (alternative justice organization). In this case, a worker from the OJA will contact the parents to set up a meeting with them.

These actions taken by the police are called extrajudicial measures. To learn more, read the article in our Youth Zone Extrajudicial Measures: The Police Decide.

No matter what the police decide to do, they will tell the parents.

Extrajudicial measures help teens avoid a full criminal court case. The police decide whether to apply an extrajudicial measure. They record what happened in a database, and the information is available to all police forces for two years.

The Teen Gets an Extrajudicial Sanction

The Teen Gets an Extrajudicial Sanction

The police can decide not to apply an extrajudicial measure. Instead, they can send the case to the criminal and penal prosecuting attorney. This is the government lawyer who has criminal cases to court against people accused of crimes. This lawyer is also called the Crown prosecutor or simply the prosecutor.

The prosecutor can do any of these things:

  1. close the case (for example, if there is not enough evidence)
  2. file charges against the teen
  3. send the box to a youth worker

Youth workers work in youth centers. They decide to prevent you from getting extrajudicial sanctions. They also try to meet with parents.

Extrajudicial sanctions are ways to hold the responsibility for their crimes without putting them through a criminal court case. These are examples of extrajudicial sanctions:

  • repairing the harm to the victim by taking part in mediation or by writing a letter of apology
  • answering to the community by doing community work
  • taking part in a program that encourages teens to think about what they did and the harm they caused

The Teen Must Appear in Youth Court

The Teen Must Appear in Youth Court

Sometimes a teen must appear before a judge in youth court. In this case, the teen will receive a document, in person or by mail. The document is called a promise to appear, an appearance notice or a summons. The parents usually receive a copy as well. This document gives the date and the time the teen must go to court. It also states the crime or crimes the teen is accused of.

Important! If your child seems to be short, it is important to go with your child.

The appearance is the first step in a criminal court case. This is a guilty plea guilty or not guilty. If the person pleads guilty, the judge will order a sentence (punishment). If the person pleads not guilty, there will be a criminal court case.

After the appearance, teens might still qualify for an extrajudicial sanction. In this situation, they will not be allowed to go through the rest of the criminal court process.

To learn more, read the articles in our Youth Zone Appearing in Youth Court and Steps in the Youth Court Process.

 

Supreme Court of Canada

 

At the very end of the court process, after the Quebec Court of Appeal, the last court to go to is the Supreme Court of Canada. This court is located in Ottawa, but it is possible to attend by videoconference from across Canada. It has only nine judges, and three of them must come from Quebec. The cases we are dealing with in the Supreme Court are appeals or referrals.

On appeal, the Supreme Court heard cases from the last Canadian provincial and territorial court and the Federal Court of Appeal. In many cases, the person who wants to submit a case to the Supreme Court must first ask permission to do so. Three judges of the Supreme Court will then decide whether or not this case should be seen by the Court.

The Government of Canada can refer the Supreme Court to ask questions directly

The Government of Canada can refer the Supreme Court to ask questions directly

The findings and directions of the Court will thus help to avoid making a mistake.

Each case is presented to at least five judges

Each case is presented to at least five judges

In fact, there are often seven and even nine when a file appears particularly important. All the evidence, all the evidence, all the conclusions of the previous courses are in the file. In practice, a hearing before the Supreme Court is therefore limited to a presentation by each of the lawyers.

The final judgment will be that of the majority of the judges, but each one of them can state the reasons which lead him to conclude one way or the other. These patterns will be read and applied throughout Canada in similar cases. For this reason, it is common for provinces, associations or even individuals to be allowed to participate in the hearing. Imagine, for example, that the Supreme Court is asked to declare void a Manitoba law preventing trout fishing. The judgment of the Supreme Court could therefore prevent all other provinces from passing a law to the same effect. It is normal then that other provinces or an association of sport fishermen want to make their point of view heard.

Important!
This article explains generally the law in force in Quebec and is not a legal opinion or advice. For rules specific to your situation, consult a lawyer or notary.

 

Testifying at a Trial as a Crime Victim

In the Canadian justice system, the victim of a crime is not always called to testify at the accused’s trial. But the prosecutor can decide it’s necessary to help the crime. This article explains the steps for testifying as a victim.

Summons to testify

Summons to testify

A crime victim who is called to testify to receive a summons, also called a subpoena. This document tells the story of the day. It also gives the courtroom number.

The summons orders the person to testify. In some cases, the judge can take steps to the victim to testify.

If you want to know more about the victim of crime, please contact the criminal prosecution before the trial. The prosecutor and criminal prosecutor is also called the Prosecutor Crown Prosecutor.

Employers must give employees time off to testify. They can not be punished for being called to testify.

Getting help

 

Victims who must testify from Crime Victims Assistance Center (CAVAC) or a Sexual Assault Center (CALACS).

A victim can also ask the prosecutor to talk about the arrangements for making testifying easier. The judge considers each request on a case-by-case basis.

examples:

  • having a trusted person while the victim while testifying
  • testifying behind a screen or by video outside the courtroom
  • keeping members of the public out of the courtroom
  • forbidding publication of information that would identify the victim

A case worker or person close to the victim can accompany the victim on the day of the trial.

What happens at the trial?

What happens at the trial?

On the day of the trial, the victim must go to the time and place shown on the summons. There’s usually a room reserved for victims. Most of the time comes from the Courtroom. Victims must sometimes wait outside the courtroom for their turn to testify.

When testifying, the victim must do the following things:

  • Take an oath or solemnly state to tell the truth.
  • Stand in front of the judge while testifying and looking at the judge.
  • Answer all the questions (usually), even if it’s difficult.

The judge needs to hear about the crime, as if it’s the first time it’s being told. Victims must tell the judge everything they know about what happened, even if they repeat what they said earlier to the police or the prosecutor.

Parts of a testimony

Parts of a testimony

There are three important parts of a testimony:

Examination: The prosecutor is the first lawyer to ask questions. Usually, the prosecutor asks the victim to explain what happened.

Cross-examination: The lawyer for the accused then asks the victim some questions. Accused people who do not have a lawyer can ask the questions themselves. The main purpose of cross-examination is to find the victim.

Re-examination: The prosecutor can ask other questions if necessary. The goal of re-examination is to let victims correct or explain what they say during cross-examination.

Testimony of a sexual assault victim

In a sexual assault trial, the accused or the lawyer is not asking questions about the victim’s past sexual history. This is to avoid giving the impression that the victim is a person who would have agreed to a sexual activity or who could be lying.

After testifying

After testifying

Victims can usually leave the courthouse right after they testify, if the judge gives them permission.

Before leaving, the victim may be in a position of compensation for the time spent in court. In some cases, including transportation, meals and accommodations. It’s important to keep receipts.

Receive an order from the judge to testify

If you receive an order from the judge to testify in a criminal trial, you must go to court at the date, time and place indicated on the application. It is your duty to participate in the smooth running of the trial. If you do not do this, you risk being arrested by the police and forcibly brought before the judge.

Go to testify? it’s an order of the judge!

 Go to testify? it's an order of the judge!

When a lawyer asks you to testify in a criminal trial, you can agree to go voluntarily. In such a case, you will not necessarily receive a judge’s order to testify (also called a “subpoena” a “subpoena” or “subponea”).

If you do not want to testify voluntarily or if a lawyer wants to make sure that you will actually appear before the judge at the agreed time, you may be given a subpoena .

The subpoena is a document in which a judge orders you to testify. This document is sent to you by mail, by a police officer or by a bailiff. It contains important information such as the date, time and place where you must go to court to testify. The document may also indicate certain items or papers that you will bring with you and present to the judge.

The assignment? it’s an order of the judge! You have an obligation to respect it.

Impossibility and refusal to testify

 Impossibility and refusal to testify

When you receive a subpoena , there may be a major reason that prevents you from going to court. For example, if you have surgery that day.

If this is the case, you must ask the judge to cancel the assignment.

Warning! As long as the summons is not canceled, you still have to go to court to testify.

In all cases where you are required to testify and you do not do so, a judge may issue a warrant for arrest against you.

This means that police could arrest you and take you to court. In addition, you may have to pay a fine, or even be imprisoned for having impeded the smooth running of the trial!