Can a defence raised at bar be considered at trial?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Thailand v. Saxena, 1999 CanLII 5549 (BC SC):
In Schmidt v. The Queen et al. (1987), 1987 CanLII 48 (SCC), 33 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.) La Forest J., at pg 209, reiterated the accepted proposition that “A judge at an extradition hearing has no jurisdiction to deal with defences that could be raised at trial unless, of course the Act or the treaty otherwise provides.” The defence raised in the case at bar is clearly one which could be raised at trial. As the Act makes no provision for the consideration of such a defence the extradition judge does not have jurisdiction to consider it.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What factors will the Court consider in deciding whether it would be unjust to find that a summary trial is appropriate to consider the issues before deciding whether to proceed with a conventional trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the defence have to be limited in its defence in the defence or preparation for trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the defence of a defence where the defence cannot raise a reasonable doubt by mere speculation? (British Columbia, Canada)
What jurisdiction does an extradition judge extend to consider defences which could be raised at trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
How may a defendant negate the inference of negligence by raising the defence of explanation or defence of inevitable accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of a trial judge's approach of not putting the defence theory explicitly in the defence? (British Columbia, Canada)
What factors will the courts consider in deciding whether to grant summary trial rather than a conventional trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test to apply to consider whether irregular or improper proceedings at trial should result in the ordering of a new trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
When a trial judge fails to mention a relevant factor in the trial, does that mean that the relevant factor has not been considered? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there a new trial for the defence in the case of a man who was found not guilty of assault but found guilty of the charge on self-defence? (British Columbia, Canada)
