Are Royal Assent, Pardons And Prorogation Fact Or Legal Fiction

Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and fifteen other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. These countries are constitutional monarchies, meaning that they operate under an essentially democratic constitution, the Queens principal role being to represent the state. Very often, she is viewed as a symbolic and apolitical personage with no real power. But is this entirely true? Does the Queen really possess purely nominal authority, or can she in fact exercise her will in any public action? This is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so by focusing mainly on one of her most important theoretical prerogatives: the right to grant or deny royal assent to laws passed by Parliament.

A difficulty in judging the extent of the authority presently held by the monarchy lies in the fact that the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. The extensive power that the monarch once indisputably possessed, including the right to administer justice, dissolve Parliament or pardon crimes, was largely a matter of common law and not statute. What laws were codified (the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 standing among the most important) served more to restrict the Monarchs power than to entrench it. Thus, the residual powers still reserved to the Queen continue to be more a matter of constitutional convention than of written rules. Formally, no Act of the British Parliament becomes a proper law until it is given assent by the Queen. Yet in practice, Elizabeth II assents to all bills, irrespective of her opinion on them. The last time a British monarch rejected a law was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill, and even then, she did so at the request of her ministers. Since then, the right of royal assent has fallen into disuse, leading some constitutional theorists to claim that a new convention obligating the monarch to assent to all bills has arisen. This view was famously stressed by Walter Bagehot in his 1867 volume The English Constitution:

…the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any.

In earlier generations, such a bold assertion of the monarchs supposed lack of power would have been unpardonable. Even I see some flaws in this theory. For one thing, the only evidence on which it stands (besides Bagehots claim) is custom. Even if all the monarchs since Queen Anne have assented to all bills presented to them, there is no formal change in any official policy that would indicate that the practice will be followed for the next bill. Additionally, if the Queen decided to withhold assent to a bill, what legal mechanism could force her to do otherwise? It would seem to me that in such an event, the veto could only be effectively circumvented by some kind of revolutionary act – as a minimum, by the Government refusing to respect the veto, which would undoubtedly lead to a constitutional crisis.

The situation is more clear-cut in Canada, which, unlike the United Kingdom, has a constitution that is largely written. The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown. According to Section 55 of the Act, when the Governor General (the Queens representative in Canada) is presented with a bill that has been passed by Parliament, he may declare that he assents to it in the Queens name, that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signification of the Queens pleasure (letting the Queen decide the matter; according to Section 57, she may do so within two years after the Governor General receives the bill). Furthermore, as per Section 56, the Queen in Council (the Queen acting on the advice of her Privy Council) may disallow a law assented to by the Governor General within two years after receiving a copy of the law. Therefore, the Queen, together with the Governor General, does have the formal authority to veto a law passed by the Canadian Parliament. Nevertheless, no Governor General has done this since Confederation in 1867, although some provincial Lieutenant Governors have vetoed provincial laws or reserved them to the pleasure of the Governor General (under the authority of Section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867). This happened most recently in 1963 when Saskatchewans Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo reserved a bill.

On top of that, there are instances in recent Commonwealth history of other royal prerogatives being directly exercised by the Crown against a governments wishes. Depending on the country, the crown may have extensive official powers, including the appointment of ministers, granting of pardons for eliminating criminal records, or calling an early election, and some of these have been exercised in person, especially during unclear political situations. A classic example is Governor General Byngs 1926 refusal to call a very early election at the request of Canadian Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who wished to remain in power despite the stronger footing of the Conservative party in Parliament. Byng refused to do so; King was incensed by this supposed infringement on democracy, but Byng stood his ground. Another famous example was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Australian Governor General John Kerr during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Whitlams controversial government did not have control of both houses of Parliament and he petitioned Kerr to call a half-senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the leader of the Opposition, in his place.

The fact that the royal prerogative is rarely exercised, if at all, by the Queen and her representatives, appears to be more the product of a conventional good will on their part than an actual legal requirement. I hope Bagehot would pardon me if I surmised that he overdid it when he claimed that the Queen must sign her own death-warrant; what he was speaking about was more a matter of everyday practice as he saw it than a real summary of the standing law. After all, the monarchy seeks to stay popular and in todays age of democracy, its very existence depends on public approval.

Food gets a little more local

So giuseppe shoes many years on this adidas hilltop me what kind of michael kors mine heard, can not really remember now louis vuitton again the north face outlet there are instyler ionic styler so swarovski jewelry loud sound, shook a few days good new balance buzz in my ear, coach outlet store online left chi flat iron ear hermes birkin down the problems, now beats by dr dre hard of hearing. Northface At that time the house to long champ the chanel purses shock nike air max 2014 off toms outlet lamp, abercrombie glass shade gucci handbags and thermos gall gave shock to pieces juicy couture on adidas the sheets leaving hollister a michael kors canada trace coke. Then go out rolex watches for sale to nike shoes see, chimney gave timberland shoes Zhata! That mcm bags four out observations of ralph lauren polo people come gucci shoes from somewhere? do not know.

Cheap Jerseys china Many people have worked hard to produce this measure City Council members, stakeholders, law enforcement, civic organizations but the guy sitting in front of me in a stripped down back room of a South Los Angeles cannabis dispensary has emerged as the de facto leader of this campaign.His name is Virgil Grant. He’s a trim 49 year old who has reaped the rewards and suffered the consequences of working in an industry that was once the province of outlaws but has fitfully moved into the legal light.Seven months ago, Grant co founded the Southern California Coalition Cheap Jerseys from china, a group representing all facets of the cannabis industry, from cultivation to sales. This was no small feat. Cheap Jerseys china

Cheap Jerseys free shipping And of course, the benefits of composting go beyond saving a bit of carbon. Food gets a little more local. Neighbors get a little closer to the earth. Again on the slideboard https://www.cheapnfljerseysfromchina.top/, Drew caught 139 tennis ball catches in a row. Think about that: He is skating back and forth on a slideboard working his entire body as I toss two balls at him at the same time, and it took 140 attempts for him to drop a ball once. Amazing.. Cheap Jerseys free shipping

Cheap Jerseys from china New York might seem like a tough place to set a precedent. It s already a nexus for many of the world s financial, entertainment and media empires, and chaotic on its quietest day. Just rising above that clutter is no small feat. The goal is to pick the team or players owning the best stats during any given week of play. The combination of statistical numbers for all chosen squad members determines a winner or a loser for fantasy playing. The top figures as a total take first place and the lowest is in last Cheap Jerseys from china.

Canadians more positive towards immigration than US and Europe

According to a poll released last Thursday, Canadian attitudes toward immigration are hardening but Canada still remains more positive attitude as compared to other Western nations including the US and Europe.

The annual survey, done by a Washington-based think-tank, looked at public perception of a wide variety of immigration issues in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. And it maintains that Canada is the most welcoming nation to the immigrants who want to live and work in Canada.

Around two-thirds of Canadians agreed that people immigrating to Canada have been successfully integrated into their society. The statistics show that respondents who felt in 2010 that immigrants helped create jobs by establishing new businesses down is down from 75 per cent in 2009 to 67 per cent in 2010. And the proportion of Canadians who thought immigration “enriches” culture by bringing in new customs and ideas slipped from 65 to 60 per cent. However in both cases, the numbers were significantly higher than those from the US and Europe.

The majority of the survey respondents from the US (73%), the UK (70%), Spain (61%), France (58%), and the Netherlands (54%) believed that their government was doing a poor job in managing immigration. Only Canadians were split, with 48% feeling positive and 43% responding negatively about their government’s handling of immigration to Canada.

Delancey Gustin – the author of the 2010 Immigration Public Opinion Survey said that Canadians are quite positive about immigration and they seem to be less bothered by issues of immigrants taking away their jobs leading to lower wages. She also stated that Canadian government policies and more importantly Canadian geography drive public attitudes.

For further information and advice on obtaining a Canadian visa, contact Migration Expert by visiting Migration Expert is an online provider of visa and immigration advice and services. The Company has been operating since 2002 when it began its Australian visa services and has since helped people from all over the world apply for visas to Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Migration For Canada By Immigration Overseas Experts

If you are a migrant and have done a bit of research by now, then you would be aware of the fact that migration is tangled process which involves myriad formalities that are to be followed for a proper migration. Also the whole process takes a very long duration to be completed. It can even take years for the authorities to properly process your application. Migration for Canada is also a very lengthy process and it also involves such complications. However these complications can be simplified if you are under the guidance of immigration consultants. Immigration consultant expertise in the department of handling complex migration laws with ease. They provide guidance to their customers for a hassle free migration. Apart from handling the immigration laws, they provide effectual services to their clients like medical insurance, pre-arranged accommodation and such others. These services facilitate the whole process of immigration.
Immigration consultants can really make a big difference in the way of your migration by saving your time and money. Still there is a thing you need to take caution of before taking assistance from this migration for Canada firms. There are many firms who will try to steal of your money without giving you proper services and by not carrying out your process even after charging you for those services. First they exorbitantly charge you then not provide you with satisfying results. For not to become a victim of such firms what you can do is check for the accreditation that the particular firm has received. Accreditations are a very important factor in deciding the reputation of any firm as they testify that the firm is a legally accepted enterprise. Then you can see for the experience they have in the migration domain. Experience means that they have handled many cases in that department and have the relevant expertise in tackling any complex situation which might arise.
Immigration Overseas is the firm which can be the end to your migration for Canada search. Here you will find some of the best and exclusive services that will make your migration experience memorable. This firm is affiliated from several government agencies like Migrants Agents Registration Authority (MARA), Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) & ICCRC. They have the experience of more than a decade, in which Immigration Overseas have handled complex migration cases.

Are Royal Assent, Pardons And Prorogation Fact Or Legal Fiction

Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and fifteen other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. These countries are constitutional monarchies, meaning that they operate under an essentially democratic constitution, the Queens principal role being to represent the state. Very often, she is viewed as a symbolic and apolitical personage with no real power. But is this entirely true? Does the Queen really possess purely nominal authority, or can she in fact exercise her will in any public action? This is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so by focusing mainly on one of her most important theoretical prerogatives: the right to grant or deny royal assent to laws passed by Parliament.

A difficulty in judging the extent of the authority presently held by the monarchy lies in the fact that the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. The extensive power that the monarch once indisputably possessed, including the right to administer justice, dissolve Parliament or pardon crimes, was largely a matter of common law and not statute. What laws were codified (the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 standing among the most important) served more to restrict the Monarchs power than to entrench it. Thus, the residual powers still reserved to the Queen continue to be more a matter of constitutional convention than of written rules. Formally, no Act of the British Parliament becomes a proper law until it is given assent by the Queen. Yet in practice, Elizabeth II assents to all bills, irrespective of her opinion on them. The last time a British monarch rejected a law was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill, and even then, she did so at the request of her ministers. Since then, the right of royal assent has fallen into disuse, leading some constitutional theorists to claim that a new convention obligating the monarch to assent to all bills has arisen. This view was famously stressed by Walter Bagehot in his 1867 volume The English Constitution:

…the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any.

In earlier generations, such a bold assertion of the monarchs supposed lack of power would have been unpardonable. Even I see some flaws in this theory. For one thing, the only evidence on which it stands (besides Bagehots claim) is custom. Even if all the monarchs since Queen Anne have assented to all bills presented to them, there is no formal change in any official policy that would indicate that the practice will be followed for the next bill. Additionally, if the Queen decided to withhold assent to a bill, what legal mechanism could force her to do otherwise? It would seem to me that in such an event, the veto could only be effectively circumvented by some kind of revolutionary act – as a minimum, by the Government refusing to respect the veto, which would undoubtedly lead to a constitutional crisis.

The situation is more clear-cut in Canada, which, unlike the United Kingdom, has a constitution that is largely written. The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown. According to Section 55 of the Act, when the Governor General (the Queens representative in Canada) is presented with a bill that has been passed by Parliament, he may declare that he assents to it in the Queens name, that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signification of the Queens pleasure (letting the Queen decide the matter; according to Section 57, she may do so within two years after the Governor General receives the bill). Furthermore, as per Section 56, the Queen in Council (the Queen acting on the advice of her Privy Council) may disallow a law assented to by the Governor General within two years after receiving a copy of the law. Therefore, the Queen, together with the Governor General, does have the formal authority to veto a law passed by the Canadian Parliament. Nevertheless, no Governor General has done this since Confederation in 1867, although some provincial Lieutenant Governors have vetoed provincial laws or reserved them to the pleasure of the Governor General (under the authority of Section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867). This happened most recently in 1963 when Saskatchewans Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo reserved a bill.

On top of that, there are instances in recent Commonwealth history of other royal prerogatives being directly exercised by the Crown against a governments wishes. Depending on the country, the crown may have extensive official powers, including the appointment of ministers, granting of pardons for eliminating criminal records, or calling an early election, and some of these have been exercised in person, especially during unclear political situations. A classic example is Governor General Byngs 1926 refusal to call a very early election at the request of Canadian Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who wished to remain in power despite the stronger footing of the Conservative party in Parliament. Byng refused to do so; King was incensed by this supposed infringement on democracy, but Byng stood his ground. Another famous example was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Australian Governor General John Kerr during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Whitlams controversial government did not have control of both houses of Parliament and he petitioned Kerr to call a half-senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the leader of the Opposition, in his place.

The fact that the royal prerogative is rarely exercised, if at all, by the Queen and her representatives, appears to be more the product of a conventional good will on their part than an actual legal requirement. I hope Bagehot would pardon me if I surmised that he overdid it when he claimed that the Queen must sign her own death-warrant; what he was speaking about was more a matter of everyday practice as he saw it than a real summary of the standing law. After all, the monarchy seeks to stay popular and in todays age of democracy, its very existence depends on public approval.

Take Help Of An Immigration Lawyer For Immigration To Canada

There are various individuals who are fascinated by immigrating to Canada as this is often one country that gives tremendous opportunities and choices to explore for brand new immigrants. Folks prefer immigration to Canada than other country as it has higher job opportunities for immigrants. In fact, the majority of people return here to figure, to start out a brand new life. And, this can be one country where you’ll notice relatively low degree of racism and discrimination within the society, as people living here are terribly open minded and they are ready to welcome people from alternative countries. Most of the privileges extended to Canadian citizens are enjoyed by immigrants. Immigrating to Canada permanently is an exciting opportunity.

Immigration to Canada has a ton of benefits and also the Canadian Government encourages it as helps in economic growth and creates cultural diversity and understanding of different nations. When immigration to Canada one gets the right to live and work anywhere in the country. One can assume for immigration to Canada along with their alternative relations, as well as children.

Immigration to Canada is lengthy method and there are tons of paper works to handle. The best manner to use for immigration to Canada is by contacting an immigration Consultant. In Canada, there are various good immigration lawyers who can facilitate your out with visas, work permit, refugee claim and tons more. Immigration lawyers provide immigration advice and facilitate to visa candidates, sometimes for a fee. But, hiring an immigration lawyer is up to you as it is nothing like your application can be given special attention or it will be done faster.

However, there are several things you ought to think about before hiring an immigration lawyer.

Hunt for an immigration Consultant counseled by individuals you trust. In fact, talk to a minimum of two to three potential advisers before selecting one.

Inquire concerning the training and expertise the immigration lawyers have and the areas they expertise.

Hire an immigration Consultant who is a professionally certified licensed member of the ‘Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants’.

Collect info regarding the services they supply and their fee structure. Get this information in writing.

Avoid hiring immigration lawyers who refuses to answer your queries or are not giving satisfactory answers.

Scan the written contract fastidiously before you sign it. The contract should have all the promised services listed properly and even the fee structure should be clearly set out.

Never leave your original documents needed for immigration to Canada with the immigration lawyer.

Before signing up the applying kind create sure it not blank. If there are some papers or documents that you don’t understand. Keep copies of any documents that are ready for you safely as you might would like it in future.

Raise the immigration lawyer to update you on the status of your application on a regular basis.

The Advantages For Contacting A Toronto Immigration Lawyer

Any consideration to migrating to a different country is a major life decision. Also, each country has unique sets of rules surrounding requirements for migration. This is why hiring a Toronto immigration lawyer can greatly help any chance of success prior to making a firm decision.

Canada, like many other countries has limitations as far as who can qualify to live in their country. They also have guidelines for whose who may have the opportunity to relocate. It is strongly advised to either meet or schedule a long distance consultation with a lawyer in order to perform an assessment before makes any set decisions on a move.

Also, there are many different types of visas available with their own unique privileges and restrictions. Having a professional adviser who is highly educated in the legal workings of immigration can save a large amount of money for perspective clients. They can also ensure that a person meets all the necessary criteria from the onset.

The average person may not realize this, but in some countries having unpaid debts, traffic or criminal convictions can negatively affect them from an opportunity for a successful visa approval. Each case is different, some cases may appear to be simple in nature while others may seem rather complicated. Even the most straight forward visa application can be denied for various reasons.

Legal advisers should be well informed of of changes to immigration changes. Laws change often, so this can be daunting for the average person to keep up with. If the reasoning or situation seems to be in a specialized section of immigrating, it is best to research an adviser who has knowledge or success in that area for those looking to free up some stress and hopefully have a smoother process through the system.

One of the most important aspects the application process is filling out the proper forms. These forms need to be filled completely and professionals are clear on what information is necessary. They also can advise as to what personal documents are needed. In many cases original documents are necessary. Some information may take a while to get originals and it is very important to ensure that everything is complete.

A person could easily encounter a refusal of their visa just by forgetting to answer a segment of forms or forgetting to provide a simple piece of information. It should be noted that having a legal team working on ones behalf does not automatically mean that a visa will be approved, though it can greatly improve ones chances.

Should there be a need to appeal a refusal, a Toronto immigration lawyer can help to ensure the process is followed through as necessary. There are many cases where having knowledge of past appeals and there outcomes can benefit a final decision. A professional tends to be the best advocate to help those wishing to migrate through all stages of immigrating. At first thought it may seem expensive to hire help, yet looking at all the technicalities involved can make the choice of having representation seem minimal.

Can I Legally Watch Hulu In Canada

Due to the growing popularity of entertainment streaming websites like Hulu more and more people in the UK and Canada are looking for easy and cost effective ways in which they can legally access these websites. The problem is that websites like Hulu and Netflix restrict their services to specific locations. However, with the use of a Hulu VPN in UK anyone can very easily gain legal access to these websites and can begin enjoying all the streaming entertainment they want to take advantage of. This is by and far the easiest way that you can go about watching Hulu in Canada or Netflix in the UK.

In order to acquire a Hulu VPN in UK the first thing you will need to do is run a quick online search for service providers. When you do this you will be surprised to discover that there are literally hundreds of such providers. At this point you will need to take a little time to begin comparing these services providers. Always be certain to fully investigate each and every VPN service that you are considering making use of. You want to do this to ensure that you are finding a company that has unlimited bandwidth and that guarantees high speed streaming.

When it comes to watching Hulu in Canada you should keep the following information in mind. This information has assisted hundreds of individuals in the UK and in Canada in choosing the very best VPN service provider available to them.

The first thing you should be aware of is the type of devices that you will be using to access Netflix and Hulu. Many people just want to use a PC or MAC to access these websites while others want to use their mobile phones or gaming systems. You should be aware that many VPN services available are limited to PC or MAC use only. Therefore, if you do want to use other electronic devices you will need to make use of a VPN that permits this and is capable of this.

Many VPNs limit the amount of bandwidth that you are capable of using each month with their service. This is one of the most important things that you will want to look into. If you desire to watch a high volume of movies and television shows using one of these services then you will most likely want to only consider those services that do in fact offer unlimited bandwidth.

You will also want to consider speed. Many VPN services reroute their services so much that their speed rates are really low. If you desire to experience high streaming quality then you should only rely on those service providers that guarantee high speeds and that dont over-route their services.

One of the very best service providers that you can choose to subscribe to is UnoTelly. They are a top rated VPN service that specializes in providing individuals in the UK and in Canada with access to the very best US based streaming entertainment websites like Netflix and Hulu. They offer fast speeds, unlimited bandwidth and very competitive pricing.

Why Legal Advice Matters

Life is all about decisions! Our day to day life involves a lot of decision-making that could pertain to investments in property or financial products, filing income tax returns, matrimonial alliances, divorce, alimony, child support, adoption, separation, consumer matters, automobile claims, inheritance and many more. Anyone who is in the midst of taking a decision in any of the above matters must be well prepared. With easy access to information, things have become simpler; but without the support of a well-qualified and experienced legal advisor, one might not be able to use the available information in the most tactful manner.

Are we really adept at taking the right decision as and when required? Probably not! We need legal help in most matters. For instance, a person going through divorce would need suggestion on matters such as, alimony or child support. We need legal assistance in a multitude of matters. It is not always feasible to engage a different lawyer for each specialized area, as the expenses can be really high! In such cases, it makes more sense to get in touch with a law firm, which has expert lawyers in different verticals, on their panel. Like other professions, the legal profession is also highly specialized. A lawyer, who usually handles inheritance cases, might not be a good help in issues pertaining to business laws. Hence, it is essential to get appropriate legal help. A law firm usually gives access to specialised services of lawyers as per their domain expertise. Moreover, laws may vary from one region to another.

A legal advisor can offer apt legal assistance in all matters. It is always wise to hire a legal advisor for individuals and businesses. Engaging an efficient lawyer is a critical step in any business. It is important to consult a good business lawyer to get legal help in most aspects of a business. Whether it is basic compliance, copyright issues, corporate mergers, lawsuits, liability or anything else, a business lawyer can suggest you about business laws and proceedings. Even in individual matters, hiring a legal advisor is the best decision one can take. This ensures an easy access to all legal provisions. Be it insurance claims, tax issues, family disputes or any other concern, proper legal advice at the right time can resolve problems at an early stage, before they turn into bigger problems.

For individuals and businesses, it is advisable to seek the help of a good legal advisor, who has the expertise and acumen of dealing with court proceedings in a specific area and can offer customised and best suited legal help as per the client’s needs. One can avail the best legal consultancy services by engaging a law firm.

Author:

Jeff Bill has more than decade experience in handling legal matter for individual and business in Canada. The author has written various popular articles on Immigration solution, criminal defense as well as spouse sponsorship in Canada.

A Criminal Defence Lawyer Explains How To Get Your Charges Withdrawn Or Stayed

If you have been charged with a criminal offence in Canada, you may be wondering what the options are for getting rid of your charges. Obviously, you can make a plea or have a trial. However, in some cases, there are other options such as having your charges withdrawn by the crown attorney or stayed. This article explains what those two terms mean.

When can the crown withdraw a charge?

The crown attorney has the right to withdraw any criminal charge before an accused person enters a plea in open court.

If you have already entered a plea, the crown attorney can still withdraw a charge, but the court must also agree that withdrawing the charge is appropriate.

If the crown tries to relay the charge after the charge has been withdrawn, the court may intervene to ensure there is no abuse of process.

Any attempt to relay a criminal charge after a withdrawal by the crown attorney should be discussed with your defence lawyer because any decision by the crown to prosecute after a charge was withdrawn may require a legal application to be brought before the court.

What about a stay of the charges? The crown attorney may also stay the proceedings as of right at any time before a final judgment is rendered. A stay of proceedings stops the prosecution proceedings immediately. The court has no power to intervene to require the continuation of the prosecution. Once a stay of proceedings is entered, the accused can also automatically be released from detention.

A stay of proceedings is an excellent outcome for the accused person. However the crown does have the power to recommence the prosecution after a stay of proceedings has been entered. This is why you should discuss with your criminal defence lawyer whether or not it is possible to obtain a withdrawal of charges rather than a stay of proceedings.

Sometimes, an experienced defence lawyer can persuade the crown to agree to withdraw the charges rather than entering a stay of proceedings.

How is either a stay or a withdrawal achieved? In many cases, these excellent outomes ocur because your criminal defence lawyer has negotiated with the crown attorney. Under Canadian law, the Crown must not proceed with the case if there is “no reasonable prosect” succeeding at trial. In the right case, an experienced criminal defence lawyer can demonstrate to the crown attorney that the crown’s case is doomed and should not continue.