If you’ve been convicted at trial by a jury, you might be wondering: what happens next? Specifically, how does the judge decide which facts matter when determining your sentence?
This is where the concept of “determined facts after a jury trial” comes into play. It’s a crucial—but often misunderstood—part of the sentencing process in Canadian criminal law.
What Does the Law Say?
Under Section 724 of the Criminal Code, judges have clear responsibilities when sentencing someone who was found guilty by a jury.
Section 724(2) states that:
- Section 724(2)(a): The judge must accept as proven all facts—express or implied—that are essential to the jury’s guilty verdict.
- Section 724(2)(b): The judge may accept other relevant facts disclosed by evidence at trial or introduced during sentencing.
- Section 724(3): If a fact is in dispute and relevant to sentencing, the court should call for evidence, unless it was already addressed at trial.
This process is designed to ensure fairness, consistency, and respect for the jury’s role in the trial.
Facing criminal charges? Don’t wait to get legal advice. Call (306) 994-9522 now for a free consultation.
Key Principles the Judge Must Follow
The sentencing judge is not free to simply interpret the verdict however they like. Courts across Canada have established firm rules about how a judge may determine the facts for sentencing purposes after a jury trial. These rules have been confirmed in cases like R v Brown (1991), R v Ferguson (2008), and R v Nelson (2014).
1. Facts Essential to the Verdict Must Be Accepted
If a certain fact was necessary for the jury to find you guilty, the judge must accept that fact as proven. This includes both facts that were explicitly stated and those that are implied by the jury’s decision.
For example, if the jury convicted you of assault with a weapon, the judge must accept that a weapon was used.
In R. v. Brown (1991), the Supreme Court affirmed that sentencing judges must accept as proven all express and implied facts essential to a jury’s finding of guilt.
2. Other Relevant Facts May Be Found Proven
Judges may also rely on other facts revealed during trial, even if they weren’t essential to the verdict—so long as they’re relevant to sentencing and supported by evidence.
In R. v. Ferguson (2008), the Court clarified that sentencing judges may make findings beyond the jury’s verdict if necessary for sentencing—but only within legal limits (para. 17).
3. Aggravating Facts Must Be Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
If the Crown wants to rely on aggravating factors to seek a harsher sentence—such as excessive violence or targeting a vulnerable person—those facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This principle is drawn from R. v. K.D.M. (2017), where the Court clarified the standards of proof required at sentencing and reiterated the limits of judicial discretion following a jury verdict (para. 42).
4. Judges Cannot Make Assumptions About Jury Reasoning
Juries don’t explain how they reach their verdicts. The judge is not allowed to guess or assume what the jury was thinking when they made their decision. If the verdict could have been based on more than one version of events, and the jury wasn’t required to choose one over the other, the judge must avoid speculation. Instead, they should independently assess the evidence to find facts that align with the jury’s decision.
In R. v. Ferguson (2008) and R. v. Brisson (2009), the courts emphasized that judges must avoid speculative reasoning about how jurors reached their decision. Jurors may agree on a verdict for different reasons.
5. Judges Cannot Accept Evidence Consistent Only With a Verdict the Jury Rejected
If the jury acquitted you on a charge, the judge cannot rely on facts that would only make sense if you were guilty of that charge.
In R. v. Nelson (2014 ONCA 853), the Court held that sentencing findings must not be inconsistent with acquittals. For instance, the judge properly refrained from finding that the accused attempted to choke the complainant, as the jury had acquitted on that count (paras. 56–59).
Charged with a criminal offence? Get strategic legal guidance today. Call (306) 994-9522 for a confidential review.
What This Means for You
If you’re facing sentencing after a jury trial, keep in mind:
- The judge is limited in what they can consider as fact.
- Aggravating claims must be properly proven, not just assumed.
- Your criminal lawyer can challenge facts that are not supported by the evidence or that go beyond the jury’s findings.
You have the right to a fair sentencing hearing. The outcome can depend significantly on how the judge interprets the evidence and applies these principles. Having an experienced criminal defence lawyer by your side is essential.
Don’t Face Your Criminal Charge Alone
An experienced criminal defence lawyer is essential when facing criminal charges. A criminal lawyer can help you navigate the complexities of the legal system, protect your rights, and develop a strong defence strategy tailored to your use of a firearm in commission of an offence case.
Need a Criminal Lawyer? Get a Free Legal Consultation With Nicholas Robinson, Criminal Lawyer
Don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you have been charged with a criminal offence. Call (306) 994-9522 and a skilled criminal defence lawyer will discuss your case with you and explore your options.