Is there an extra time given for criminal prosecution in Canada if there&#39;s foreign evidence that have to be collected? Is there an extra time given for criminal prosecution in Canada if there's foreign evidence that have to be collected? There might be delays experienced if the court has to secure bank records and other evidences located outside of Canada, I am wondering if the laws of Canada take that into consideration when applying the statute of limitation for criminal laws. https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-005-4460?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=(sc.Default)&amp;firstPage=true The Court held that proceeding on a foreign judgment is subject to the basic two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24 (Act). Section 16(1) of the Act, which provides that there is no limitation period in respect of &quot;a proceeding to enforce an order of a court, or any other order that may be enforced in the same way as an order of a court&quot; does not apply to a foreign judgment. There's something I found about foreign judgment, but it doesn't seem to be related to foreign evidence at all.
Statutes of Limitation are not applicable once charges are laid Statutes of limitation set time limits on when proceedings (civil or criminal) must be started, not on when they must be concluded. This does put pressure on police forces to gather sufficient evidence to lay charges (at least for crimes that have a statute of limitations - the most serious don't) but further evidence to secure a conviction can be sought during the trial process. How much time they get is usually at they discretion of the judge.
There are essentially no such limits on the use of such evidence. The police are free to use evidence from one case in whatever other cases it may be helpful, and criminals have no right to turn over evidence to the police on the condition that it not be used against them. The Exclusionary Rule has no application here, because it only governs evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because the defendant here consented to producing the evidence, the Fourth Amendment does not apply. Nor does the Fifth Amendment prohibit the use of this evidence. The right against self-incrimination only applies to compelled self-incrimination; if a defendant wants to voluntarily confess or turn over inculpatory evidence, he is free to do so.
Part XVIII of the Criminal Code addresses the power and procedure for appeals. Appeals of indictable offences are appealed to the provincial Court of Appeal. The Crown can generally appeal where there is an error in law. The Crown has a limited appeal on the basis of questions of fact. This includes appeals for unreasonable verdict.1 However, the Crown cannot appeal on issues of credibility unless it amount to an error in law. The Defence can appeal both issues of fact and law.(ss. 675 and 676) R. v. Kendall, [2005] O.J. No. 2457 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 46 from a Canadian Criminal Procedure Wiki. Unlike in U.S. law, the government can directly appeal an acquittal on certain grounds in Canada (without regard to whether it was a jury trial or a bench trial), although those grounds aren't quite as broad as those of the defense. This would also be true in modern English law. In practice, it is somewhat easier to appeal a verdict in a bench trial than in a jury trial, because in a bench trial you know why the judge says he or she came to the verdict and can determine if those reasons were incorrect, while in a jury trial, the appellate court presumes that the jury followed the law and use any even implausible basis for their opinion even if that isn't what really happened. The complete bar on appeals of acquittals of criminal charges in U.S. law due to the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, is a rare exception to the global norm.
Unless there is enough evidence to convict one or more of the suspects, none will be convicted. In general the argument: We know it must be one of you, but we don't know whch, so we find you all guilty. is not allowed in any non-dictatorial jurisdiction. Just how much evidence is needed for a conviction varies by jurisdiction in theory, and by judge or jury in practice. Also, it would be possible to charge several of the residents with having acted jointly in the crime, but there would still need to be sufficient evidence against each defendant to obtain a conviction.
Up to any time bar in a statute of limitations: yes By using the services, your neighbour incurred the debt. The debt did not become due and payable until the bill was issued. It doesn’t matter when the bill was issued. In most jurisdictions, there is a statute of limitations with a time limit on how long after a debt was accrued it can be pursued. For Utah, the limit is 6 years so your neighbour is liable for all of the past 4 years. Given the circumstances, the utility may look favourably on proposals for discounts and time to pay but that will be a commercial decision, not a legal obligation.
You have asked about "United Kingdom", but I can only answer about England and Wales; the law in Scotland is very different (rather more different in some respects than the difference between E&amp;W and the State of New York). There is no time limit per se on manslaughter charges; if the police find evidence for a manslaughter charge after 80 years, there is no difficulty (in principle) in bringing a charge against the now-centenarian (provided they are competent to stand trial, and they can get a fair trial, and so on). However, in the case you mentioned I would have thought the major problem would be a defence of autrefois convict - in other words, the defendant can (usually) only be charged once with charges arising from a particular set of facts. It is just possible that the subsequent death constitutes a new fact which allows a new prosecution. On the other hand, the rule for murder used to be that if the victim survived a year and a day then it wasn't murder (even if they then died of their injuries). Finally, the case certainly would not be reopened with a charge of manslaughter. It would be "causing death by dangerous driving", which is a very different offence. Edit My thanks to ohwilleke whose comment about the "year and a day" rule prompted me to do a little research, and discover the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996. Section 2(2) clearly covers the present case (in both legs), and says that the perpetrator can be re-prosecuted, but only with the permission of the Attorney General. The act is very brief, and I encourage you to read it all. (And incidentally, does not apply to Scotland.)
Any country is free to decide what actions are considered to be crimes, and what crimes are prosecuted depending on whether you perform the action in the country, outside the country, and depending on whether you are a citizen, a resident, both, or neither. They can also decide what are accepted defences in court and which are not. Any other country is free to decide under which circumstances they will ever extradite someone to that first country. Now you have to check the laws of the individual countries.
Stogner v. California, a criminal case, held that &quot;A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution&quot;. In 1798, in Calder v. Bull, SCOTUS long ago decided that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to civil cases. In that case, Calder had been entitled to property under a will, and the Connecticut legislature changed the law. The Supreme Court held that the legislative act was not an Ex Post Facto law. Chase's reasoning, which relies on the distinction between ex post facto law and retrospective law, is this: In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws and retrospective laws. Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective, but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law. The former only are prohibited. Every law that takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective, and is generally unjust and may be oppressive, and it is a good general rule that a law should have no retrospect; but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community and also of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement, as statutes of oblivion or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning and after the facts committed. But I do not consider any law ex post facto within the prohibition that mollifies the rigor of the criminal law, but only those that create or aggravate the crime or increase the punishment or change the rules of evidence for the purpose of conviction. Every law that is to have an operation before the making thereof, as to commence at an antecedent time or to save time from the statute of limitations or to excuse acts which were unlawful, and before committed, and the like, is retrospective. But such laws may be proper or necessary, as the case may be. There is a great and apparent difference between making an unlawful act lawful and the making an innocent action criminal and punishing it as a crime. The expressions &quot;ex post facto laws&quot; are technical; they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by legislators, lawyers, and authors. So, yes it can.