An Ontario judge convicted a man of a firearm offence. However, at the sentencing hearing three months later, he announced that he had changed his mind. He stated: “To convict Mr. Griffith raises the risk of a grave injustice. The Crown has presented a strong case, but I can no longer say in good conscience that I’m sure the gun was in the possession of Mr. Griffith. I must find him not guilty and I’m going to make that change in the verdict.” The Ontario Court of Appeal had to decide if a trial judge is entitled to change his mind. It decided that he could. It recognized that “in a judge-alone trial, a judge is not required to sentence someone who he believes has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; such a requirement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” It ruled that the trial judge had a duty not to convict Mr. Griffith. However, the Court of Appeal also ruled that the trial judge made two mistakes. He should have provided the parties with a chance to make submissions, particularly, the Crown. And, the trial judge was wrong to acquit the accused. The Court of Appeal stated that there is no preferred remedy in such a situation, but in this case, the correct remedy was to declare a mistrial and to order a new trial for the accused.
About Teresa Mitchell
