A judge’s decision in a criminal case is bound by the principles of jurisdiction and functus officio. However, there are exceptions to these principles, and it’s essential to understand when a judge can change their decision. In this blog post, we will explore the circumstances under which a judge can reconsider their decision, the doctrine of implied jurisdiction, and the importance of natural justice in the judicial process.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Functus Officio
Jurisdiction is the legal power of a court to exercise authority over a person, subject matter, or geographic area. Once a judge has made a decision within their jurisdiction, they are functus officio, which means their authority is exhausted, and they cannot change their decision. This principle applies to criminal cases once the charge has been resolved by way of a stay of proceedings, dismissal, acquittal, or sentencing. However, there are exceptions to this doctrine.
A judge may reconsider a decision in certain situations. For example, a judge can reconsider a finding of guilt after a trial upon an application to admit “fresh evidence” prior to sentencing. Additionally, a judge who has accepted a guilty plea from an accused may allow the accused to withdraw the guilty plea prior to sentencing. These exceptions provide a possibility for a judge to change their decision in specific circumstances.
Another exception to the doctrine of functus officio is the doctrine of implied jurisdiction. Under this doctrine, a judge can revisit a formal judgment after it has been formally issued and entered in cases where there has been a slip in drawing it up or an error in expressing the manifest intention of the court. For example, if there is a mistake in the written judgment that does not reflect the court’s actual intention, the court has the power to correct it under the doctrine of implied jurisdiction.
A recent case, R v Hasiu (2018 ONCA 24), illustrates the application of the doctrine of implied jurisdiction. In this case, the sentencing judge had amended the sentence after it had already been proclaimed, changing it from concurrent to consecutive with the sentence the offender was already serving. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether the proposed amendment was consistent with the judge’s manifest intentions at the time the sentence was imposed and whether it would cause unfairness to the offender. After examining the record of the proceeding, the court concluded that the amendment was not within the manifest intention of the sentencing judge and would manifestly unfair to the offender. As a result, the original sentence was restored.
The principles of natural justice also play a crucial role in determining when a judge can change their decision. The rules of natural justice require the court to give those affected by a decision an opportunity to be heard. Failure to provide an opportunity for full submissions on an issue may be considered a violation of procedural fairness. For example, in the case of R v Arens (2016 ABCA 20), the accused was convicted of impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death. Prior to the trial, the judge had ruled that the evidence of the arresting officer’s observations and a video recording of the accused’s intoxication was obtained in breach of the accused’s rights. However, during the trial, the judge reversed his earlier decision and found that the officer had a lawful basis to arrest the accused, resulting in the accused’s conviction. On appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that the judge ought to have provided the accused an opportunity to present full submissions on the issue before reversing his decision as a matter of procedural fairness. As a result, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.
In conclusion, while the doctrine of functus officio generally prevents a judge from changing their decision in a criminal case, there are exceptions such as reconsideration of a finding of guilt based on fresh evidence, withdrawal of a guilty plea, and the doctrine of implied jurisdiction. The principles of natural justice also play a significant role in determining when a judge can change their decision, as failure to provide an opportunity for full submissions on an issue may be considered a violation of procedural fairness. It’s important for legal practitioners and individuals involved in the criminal justice system to have a clear understanding of these exceptions and principles to ensure that justice is served in a fair and transparent manner. If you have been charged with a criminal offence, please do not hesitate to contact me for a free initial consultation. I will be be glad to assist you.