I am trying to understand how this will have the effect you are looking for. Will this prevent a case like the one you just mentioned from happening? I am not sure of that, because amendment LIB-11 reads as follows:
an included offence—and the prosecutor and the accused will submit a joint submission on sentencing, the court shall, after
Does that remain as is or does it end after the words “the court shall, after”? Does the subsection continue? What does that change in relation to the case mentioned by the lawyer from the Canadian Bar Association? The same case can happen again. That is my understanding of the new subsection 4.1. When it says that the accused and the prosecutor enter into an agreement, I think it usually means that there is also an agreement on the sentence. I stand to be corrected by the department officials, but an agreement is not reached for a plea alone. Usually, when there is an agreement, the individual does not just plead guilty. The person pleads guilty and there is an agreement on the sentence. I don't know which defence lawyer would tell a client to plead guilty without knowing what the sentence would be. As a general rule, in court, the defence tells the Crown that the client is ready to plead guilty if the sentence is such and such, and that is what happens.
I fully understand the argument and that we should not hold things up, but I think things will stay the same in the circumstances. I am trying to understand what will change.
Could you tell me whether “agreement” refers to “agreement on sentence”.