R. v. G.S.S.G.

(Calgary Court of Justice - Refusing to blow). SG was charged with refusing to blow arising from an incident in an underground parkade where a roadside sanction was also issued. SG successfully managed to have the roadside sanction for refusal "cancelled"; however, this case did not immediately end with the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) because SG was still facing the threat of criminal prosecution. The lesson from this case is about Crown pre-charge approval and/or loss of jurisdiction by the Court.

At SG's first criminal court appearance, there were no charges at the Case Management Office (CMO). It is unclear precisely what happened, but one can surmise that either the Prosecution did not approve the criminal law case or that the State lost jurisdiction over the accused. Crown pre-charge approval means that the Prosecution will analyze the case scheduled for first appearance to decide whether there is a public interest in prosecuting that has sufficient evidence to satisfy reasonable prospect of conviction. In SG's case, there was a serious question as to whether there wa a "public interest" in seeking a criminal conviction for the refusal in the unique circumstances of the investigation.  

Loss of jurisdiction means that for whatever reason, the charge did not find its way into Court. When there is a loss of jurisdiction, such as for example, a failure to file the charge, the State loses control (jurisdiction) over the person charged and the appearance itself. In these circumstances, where the State still wishes to prosecute, it must regain control by either issuing a warrant in the public interest or in the case of summary matters (such as SG's), by issuing a new summons to attend court. In loss of jurisdiction cases, the Prosecution will often decline to apply for a warrant or re-issue a summons because the public interest cannot be justified by the use of resources and the delay. 

Whenever there is a loss of jurisdiction, the criminal defence lawyer must carefully assess the case, obtain instructions from the client and determine whether it is in the best interest of the accused to "attorn" to the jurisdiction. "Attornment" essentially means that an accused surrenders him or herself to the jurisdiction of the Court. Some accused choose to attorn simply because they do no want to be looking over the shoulder, while others are prepared to, colloquially speaking, let sleeping dogs lie. 

SG let sleeping dogs lie. 

David Chow is a Calgary criminal lawyer who routinely advises clients about loss of jurisdiction issues. Personal and legal decisions about loss of jurisdiction must be carefully balanced.  If you have been charged with a criminal offence in Alberta, there is wisdom in retaining am Alberta criminal defence lawyer to ensure the your legal rights -- including those relating to loss of jurisdiction -- are maintained.