Plea bargains play a vital role in Canada’s justice system. By reducing the number of cases that go to trial and providing greater certainty in outcomes for accused persons, they help improve the system’s overall efficiency. However, plea bargains present some serious concerns. When vulnerable individuals—facing financial hardship, inadequate legal support, and compelling evidence against them—are presented with a plea deal, are they truly being afforded the right to the presumption of innocence?
The presumption of innocence guarantees that every person charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair and public trial. Yet plea bargains can undermine this principle by pressuring accused persons to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. This is especially troubling considering documented false guilty pleas that have led to wrongful convictions in Canada. For those facing severe penalties, overwhelming evidence, or systemic disadvantages, a guilty plea may feel like their only viable option. In such cases, the presumption of innocence is effectively denied.
In this episode, Madelyn explores the key factors contributing to false guilty pleas, including limited legal resources, systemic discrimination, and evidentiary issues. Madelyn examines the cases of Dinesh Kumar and Anthony Hanemaayer—two individuals who were wrongfully convicted after pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit. These stories reveal how plea bargains, when accepted under coercive conditions, override the presumption of innocence.
Will the justice system find a balance between efficiency and fairness—or will the presumption of innocence continue to be a casualty of compromise?
Madelyn Pepper – Producer, Host, Editor
Pro Bono Radio is part of the Queen’s Chapter of Pro Bono Students Canada. The Pro Bono Radio team are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice.
Subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify and Stitcher!
Research referred to in the Podcast:
JURISPRUDENCE
R. v. Brant, 2011 ONCA 362
R. v. Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206
R. v. Hanemaayer, 2008 ONCA 580
R. v. Kumar, 2011 ONCA 120
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c. C-46, s. 606(1.1)
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Exonerations: Richard Brant. Innocence Canada. https://www.innocencecanada.com/the-latest/exoneration/richard-brant/
Exonerations: Dinesh Kumar. Innocence Canada. https://www.innocencecanada.com/the-latest/exoneration/dinesh-kumar/
Victim participation in the plea negotiation process in Canada. Retrieved from the Government of Canada website:https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr02_5/p0.html
Causes of wrongful convictions. Innocence Canada, https://www.innocencecanada.com/causes-of-wrongful-convictions/
Exonerations: Anthony Hanemaayer. Innocence Canada. https://www.innocencecanada.com/the-latest/exoneration/anthony-hanemaayer/
Dr. Charles Smith: The man behind the public inquiry. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dr-charles-smith-the-man-behind-the-public-inquiry-1.864004
Zina Lu Burke Scott, An Inconvenient Bargain: The Ethical Implications of Plea Bargaining in Canada, 2018 81-1 Saskatchewan Law Review 53, 2018 CanLIIDocs 372, <https://canlii.ca/t/2fns>
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS