R Vs Nixon Essay

The case of R v. Nixon concerned a woman who drove a motor home through an intersection and upon hitting another vehicle, killed a man and a woman and injured their young son. The case became well known and reached the Supreme Court of Canada because of an incident between the Crown and the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister (hereinafter referred to as the ADM). The Crown made the decision to enter into a plea agreement with the accused, however, the ADM believed the plea bargain itself would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and thus needed to be withdrawn. This led to the case making its way to the Supreme Court level claiming the withdrawal of a plea bargain violated Nixon’s s. 7 Charter rights. The SCC granted the Crown …show more content…
On one hand, the plea agreement should be revoked before it was allowing a woman who willingly got behind the wheel intoxicated and killed two people to get off on an atrociously light sentence leading to the administration of justice being brought into disrepute. However, once the Crown has given a plea sentence, it seems unfair to simply take it back. The Crown had already received approval for the bargain and informed the defence and the accused of the bargain they were to receive. Plea bargains in themselves are an issue, Flynn states that there is a link between public confidence and transparency in plea bargaining. Furthermore, it was found that plea agreements are generally frowned upon by the public because it appears to benefit the offender at the expense of the victim (Flynn, 133). After considering both sides of the argument, the author of this paper agrees with the Supreme Court of Canada and their decision to allow prosecutorial reneging of plea bargains. This opinion is based on the goal of the proper administration of justice and the fact that justice Charron made clear in the case that reputations should remain rare (R v. Nixon, para 69). Therefore, there is not the fear that plea bargains can be revoked on a