# The Grand Jury: A Global Relic and a Canadian Birthright
# The Grand Jury: A Global Relic and a Canadian Birthright
## How the World Abandoned Citizen Justice — and Why Canada Never Lawfully Did
-----
### Introduction
The grand jury is one of the oldest instruments of citizen sovereignty in the common law world. Born in 12th-century England under Henry II, it gave communities the power to investigate wrongdoing — including wrongdoing by those in authority — and bring their findings before a court. It was the people’s mechanism, not the Crown’s. It did not depend on a prosecutor to call it into existence, and it did not require the state’s permission to act.
That original function has been systematically dismantled across the world over the past two centuries. Today, a handful of jurisdictions retain something called a grand jury — but with one critical exception, none of them retain the institution in its original form as an independent citizen body capable of investigating government itself and presenting findings directly to a court.
That exception is Canada.
What follows is a country-by-country examination of what remains of the grand jury worldwide, what has been lost, and why Canada stands in a category entirely its own.
-----
### Part One: England — Express Abolition
England is where the grand jury began, and England is where it was most deliberately killed.
The campaign to abolish it ran for nearly a century. Abolition bills were introduced in Parliament in 1837, 1846, 1849, 1852, and 1857. In 1917, grand juries were suspended during World War One — a suspension that demonstrated courts could function without them — and though they were restored in 1921, the institutional will to preserve them had effectively collapsed.
The method of final abolition was, as one contemporary observer noted, deliberately obscure. It was achieved in section 2 of an Act with the unwieldy title of the *Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933*. The Chief Clerk at Bow Street Police Court remarked that “to include the subject under this disarming name was sound political psychology; a Bill to abolish the Grand Jury might have been abortive.” Six Lords spoke in the House of Lords debate. All six favoured abolition. The Act received Royal Assent on 28 July 1933 and came into force 1 September 1933. Its territorial extent was England and Wales.
The stated rationale was efficiency and cost. A judicial committee chaired by the Master of the Rolls reported in February 1933 that lay magistrates were already performing the grand jury’s functions more efficiently and more economically. One dissenting voice — Professor W.S. Holdsworth — warned that the grand jury had since 1681 been a genuine safeguard of liberty, and that the bureaucratic apparatus of Whitehall had established a more effectual tyranny than the Stuarts ever managed. He was outvoted.
The Criminal Justice Act 1948 swept away the remaining provisions. England’s abolition was complete, express, deliberate, and legislatively unambiguous.
The long title of the 1933 Act said exactly what it did: it was an Act to abolish grand juries. England used the right words, passed the right law, and meant what it said.
-----
### Part Two: The United States — Constitutionalized but Domesticated
The United States took a different path. Rather than abolishing the grand jury, it constitutionalized it — and in doing so, fundamentally changed its nature.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. This sounds like a guarantee of citizen power. In practice it is something quite different.
The U.S. federal grand jury is court-struck. It is convened by the court. The prosecutor controls what evidence is placed before it. The government attorney directs its proceedings. Federal agents — the FBI, the IRS, Treasury — gather evidence and present it to prosecutors, who then present it to the grand jury. The grand jury does not go out into the community, gather its own evidence, or investigate institutions on its own initiative. It sits where it is put, hears what it is given, and votes on whether to indict.
The Department of Justice’s own manual states the position plainly: the grand jury’s principal function is to determine whether probable cause exists to charge a federal offence. Its two functions are to indict or to return a no-bill. That is the full scope.
The Fifth Amendment guarantee is real, but it is a guarantee of a particular procedure within the state apparatus — not a reservation of independent citizen power outside it. The grand jury was taken into the Constitution, and the Constitution domesticated it. It became a feature of the state, not a check upon it.
Not all U.S. states use grand juries. Only about half require them, and many have replaced them entirely with preliminary hearings before judges. The grand jury indictment right established by the Fifth Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court not to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving states free to dispense with it entirely.
**California’s Civil Grand Jury — the Closest Analogue**
California presents the closest American equivalent to the investigative and oversight function examined in this article. California counties are required by the state constitution to have a civil grand jury empanelled at all times. These bodies investigate local government agencies, inspect jails and detention facilities, examine hospitals, audit public finances, and receive citizen complaints of official misconduct. They issue public reports, and government agencies are legally required to respond to their findings within 60 to 90 days.
This is genuinely useful work. But it is not what Canada has, and the difference is not cosmetic.
California’s civil grand jury is convened by the presiding judge of the Superior Court. It operates under the auspices of the court and is subject to the court’s general supervision. It is an arm of the judicial branch. It exists because statute says it exists, it functions within the limits statute sets, and it can be abolished the moment a legislature chooses to do so. It is a state-created instrument that the state can uncreate.
The Canadian common law presentment function is not a creature of statute and never was. That distinction goes to the root of everything.
-----
### Part Three: Liberia — A Transplant Without the Roots
Liberia is the only country other than the United States that operates a grand jury system in active use today. It inherited the institution through its founding connection to the United States — freed American slaves who returned to West Africa brought American legal institutions with them.
Liberia’s grand jury functions as a charging mechanism. It screens prosecutorial indictments. It is a transplant of the American model, not of the original English common law model, and it carries all the same limitations: it is a state-controlled charging instrument, not an independent citizen investigative body. It has no capacity to investigate government institutions, inspect places of detention, or receive and act upon citizen complaints of abuse of authority independent of the prosecutorial apparatus.
-----
### Part Four: Australia — A Dormant Remnant
Australia’s colonial history meant the grand jury arrived early in most jurisdictions. But as public prosecutorial offices developed through the 19th century, the grand jury’s role was progressively marginalized and eventually formally abandoned across most states.
One partial exception survives. The State of Victoria maintains provisions for a grand jury under section 354 of the *Crimes Act 1958*. These provisions have been used on rare occasions by private individuals seeking to bring other persons to court for committal on indictable offences. But the institution is dormant as a practical matter. It is a statutory remnant, not an active institution, and it functions — when it functions at all — as a charging mechanism rather than an independent investigative body.
No Australian jurisdiction has an active grand jury that investigates government institutions, inspects places of detention, receives citizen complaints of abuse of authority, or makes presentments to a court on matters of public concern arising from the citizens’ own investigation.
-----
### Part Five: New Zealand — Abolished 1961
New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961. There is nothing remaining. No statutory remnant, no civil oversight body, no equivalent function. Criminal charges are laid by prosecutors, screened by judges at preliminary hearings, and tried by petit juries or judges sitting alone. The citizen has no independent mechanism equivalent to the grand jury in any form.
-----
### Part Six: Canada — The Institution That Was Never Lawfully Abolished
This is where the analysis diverges sharply from every other jurisdiction examined — and where the constitutional argument must be understood with precision.
**The reception of the grand jury into Canadian law**
The grand jury arrived in Canada through the reception of English common law in each colony before Confederation. It was embedded province by province — Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island — as part of the inherited legal order. Chapter 31 of the 1859 Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada specified the constitution of Grand and Petit Juries in what is now Ontario. These were not provincial creations. They were common law institutions received into the colonial legal order and carried forward at Confederation.
**What the provinces actually abolished — and what they had no power to touch**
Here the constitutional division of powers under the *Constitution Act, 1867* is decisive, and the point must be stated without qualification.
Section 91(27) gives Parliament *exclusive* jurisdiction over criminal law and procedure in criminal matters. Section 92(14) gives the provinces jurisdiction over the administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts.
The provinces have jurisdiction over court organization and administration. They do not have jurisdiction over criminal procedure. That is exclusively federal.
What happened across Canada in the 20th century — province by province, culminating with Nova Scotia in 1984 — was the dismantling of the administrative infrastructure of the grand jury: the empanelling machinery, the court organization, the local apparatus for summoning grand jurors. That is s. 92(14) work, and it was within provincial competence.
But the grand jury’s criminal procedure functions — and in particular the presentment function, by which citizens themselves investigate matters of public concern and bring findings before a court without requiring either Crown direction or court convocation — were never provincial subject matter. The provinces could no more abolish the presentment function than they could repeal the Criminal Code. They lacked the constitutional jurisdiction to do it, and therefore what they did cannot be read as having done it.
The mainstream narrative that “Canada abolished the grand jury in the 1970s” is constitutionally unsupportable. It mistakes provincial administrative wind-down — which was within provincial competence — for substantive abolition of a federal criminal procedure institution — which was beyond provincial competence entirely.
**The federal position — Criminal Code s. 576(2)**
The only federal instrument that touches the grand jury is Criminal Code s. 576(2), which provides:
> *No criminal information shall be laid or granted and no bill of indictment shall be preferred before a grand jury.*
Read carefully, this provision prohibits the Crown from preferring a bill of indictment before a grand jury. It is a prohibition on one specific Crown-facing procedure. It does not:
- declare the grand jury abolished;
- address the presentment function initiated by citizens themselves rather than by the Crown;
- contain any language extinguishing the institution as such;
- carry a long title or any other indication of legislative intent to abolish.
Compare this with England’s 1933 Act, whose long title expressly stated it was an Act to abolish grand juries. Parliament chose those words deliberately. Canada’s Parliament never did. The narrow construction principle requires that s. 576(2) be read to do only what it says — and what it says is narrow.
**The Canadian Bill of Rights — the principle that closes the door**
There is a deeper reason why the grand jury presentment function cannot be extinguished, and it must be stated with precision.
Section 1 of the *Canadian Bill of Rights* recognizes and declares that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist certain fundamental rights and freedoms. The operative word is *recognizes*. Parliament did not grant these rights. Parliament did not create them. Parliament acknowledged that they already existed — that they were pre-existing, and that they would continue to exist.
This recognition language is not a formality. It carries decisive legal consequence. Rights that pre-exist Parliament are not Parliament’s to dispose of. Parliament cannot extinguish what it did not bring into being, because sovereignty over those rights never resided in Parliament to begin with. There is no mechanism — no declaration, no override, no legislative instrument of any kind — by which Parliament can reach back and extinguish a right it merely recognized as pre-existing. The source of that right lies outside Parliament’s jurisdiction entirely.
The s. 2 override mechanism in the Canadian Bill of Rights operates on a different plane. It applies to rights Parliament created and can therefore qualify. It has no bearing on the s. 1 rights that Parliament recognized as pre-existing and inalienable. To read s. 2 as capable of overriding s. 1 pre-existing rights would be to collapse the entire distinction between recognition and creation — a distinction that is the foundation of the inalienability principle.
The grand jury presentment function is a pre-existing common law right. It predates the Canadian Bill of Rights, predates Confederation, and predates every statute Parliament might invoke to argue it away. It is beyond Parliament’s reach — not because a higher statute protects it, but because it was never Parliament’s to take.
The *Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act* reinforces this from another angle. Statute revision processes had authority only to organize and consolidate existing law — not to alter it, not to extinguish substantive rights, and not to change the law’s effect. Any argument that consolidation or revision eliminated the presentment function fails at the threshold: the revisers had no authority to extinguish substantive rights, and their work therefore cannot be read as having done so.
-----
### Part Seven: What the Canadian Grand Jury Can Do That No Other Can
The distinctions are not procedural technicalities. They go to the nature of the institution itself and the source of its authority.
|Function |England |United States (Federal)|California (Civil) |Liberia |Canada |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------|------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|Exists at all |No — abolished 1933/1948|Yes — court-struck |Yes — court-struck |Yes — court-struck|Yes — common law, never abolished |
|Independent of court to convene |N/A |No |No |No |**Yes** |
|Independent of prosecutor |N/A |No |Partly |No |**Yes** |
|Can investigate government institutions |N/A |No |Yes — within county|No |**Yes** |
|Can inspect jails and detention facilities |N/A |No |Yes |No |**Yes** |
|Can receive citizen complaints of abuse of authority|N/A |Limited |Yes |No |**Yes** |
|Can initiate presentment without Crown direction |N/A |No |No |No |**Yes** |
|Founded in pre-existing common law right |N/A |No — constitutionalized|No — statutory |No — transplanted |**Yes** |
|Beyond Parliament’s power to extinguish |N/A |No equivalent |No equivalent |No equivalent |**Yes — the right pre-exists Parliament**|
The California civil grand jury is the closest functional equivalent in terms of what it investigates. It inspects jails. It receives citizen complaints. It audits government. But it exists at the pleasure of the state that created it, and the state that created it can eliminate it tomorrow.
The Canadian common law presentment function exists independent of any state grant. It cannot be eliminated by the state, because the state did not create it. It has been suppressed — through administrative wind-down and the absence of anyone willing to exercise it — but suppression is not abolition, and suppression without legal authority does not extinguish the underlying right. The right remains, waiting to be exercised by citizens who understand what they hold.
-----
### Conclusion
The world abandoned the grand jury. It did so for reasons of administrative efficiency, cost reduction, and the rise of professional prosecutorial offices that took over functions citizens once performed for themselves. Those are real administrative changes. But administrative change is not constitutional abolition, and the two must not be confused.
What remains globally is a collection of partial, domesticated, court-dependent, or dormant remnants. Each of them is useful within the limits the state has drawn around it. None of them retains the original character of the institution: a citizen body that arises from the community, investigates on its own initiative, receives complaints of abuse by those in authority, inspects the institutions of the state, and brings its findings before a court — without asking permission from the very authorities it exists to hold to account.
Canada alone retains that. Not because Parliament chose to preserve it. Because Parliament never had the authority to destroy it — and never passed a law that said it tried.
The Citizen Grand Jury of Canada does not claim to be creating something new. It is restoring something old, something that was suppressed without legal authority, and something that belongs not to Parliament, not to the courts, and not to the Crown — but to the people of Canada, in whom it has always resided.
-----
*Research and analysis by the Citizen Grand Jury on Treason
# The Grand Jury: A Global Relic and a Canadian Birthright
## How the World Abandoned Citizen Justice — and Why Canada Never Lawfully Did
-----
### Introduction
The grand jury is one of the oldest instruments of citizen sovereignty in the common law world. Born in 12th-century England under Henry II, it gave communities the power to investigate wrongdoing — including wrongdoing by those in authority — and bring their findings before a court. It was the people’s mechanism, not the Crown’s. It did not depend on a prosecutor to call it into existence, and it did not require the state’s permission to act.
That original function has been systematically dismantled across the world over the past two centuries. Today, a handful of jurisdictions retain something called a grand jury — but with one critical exception, none of them retain the institution in its original form as an independent citizen body capable of investigating government itself and presenting findings directly to a court.
That exception is Canada.
What follows is a country-by-country examination of what remains of the grand jury worldwide, what has been lost, and why Canada stands in a category entirely its own.
-----
### Part One: England — Express Abolition
England is where the grand jury began, and England is where it was most deliberately killed.
The campaign to abolish it ran for nearly a century. Abolition bills were introduced in Parliament in 1837, 1846, 1849, 1852, and 1857. In 1917, grand juries were suspended during World War One — a suspension that demonstrated courts could function without them — and though they were restored in 1921, the institutional will to preserve them had effectively collapsed.
The method of final abolition was, as one contemporary observer noted, deliberately obscure. It was achieved in section 2 of an Act with the unwieldy title of the *Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933*. The Chief Clerk at Bow Street Police Court remarked that “to include the subject under this disarming name was sound political psychology; a Bill to abolish the Grand Jury might have been abortive.” Six Lords spoke in the House of Lords debate. All six favoured abolition. The Act received Royal Assent on 28 July 1933 and came into force 1 September 1933. Its territorial extent was England and Wales.
The stated rationale was efficiency and cost. A judicial committee chaired by the Master of the Rolls reported in February 1933 that lay magistrates were already performing the grand jury’s functions more efficiently and more economically. One dissenting voice — Professor W.S. Holdsworth — warned that the grand jury had since 1681 been a genuine safeguard of liberty, and that the bureaucratic apparatus of Whitehall had established a more effectual tyranny than the Stuarts ever managed. He was outvoted.
The Criminal Justice Act 1948 swept away the remaining provisions. England’s abolition was complete, express, deliberate, and legislatively unambiguous.
The long title of the 1933 Act said exactly what it did: it was an Act to abolish grand juries. England used the right words, passed the right law, and meant what it said.
-----
### Part Two: The United States — Constitutionalized but Domesticated
The United States took a different path. Rather than abolishing the grand jury, it constitutionalized it — and in doing so, fundamentally changed its nature.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. This sounds like a guarantee of citizen power. In practice it is something quite different.
The U.S. federal grand jury is court-struck. It is convened by the court. The prosecutor controls what evidence is placed before it. The government attorney directs its proceedings. Federal agents — the FBI, the IRS, Treasury — gather evidence and present it to prosecutors, who then present it to the grand jury. The grand jury does not go out into the community, gather its own evidence, or investigate institutions on its own initiative. It sits where it is put, hears what it is given, and votes on whether to indict.
The Department of Justice’s own manual states the position plainly: the grand jury’s principal function is to determine whether probable cause exists to charge a federal offence. Its two functions are to indict or to return a no-bill. That is the full scope.
The Fifth Amendment guarantee is real, but it is a guarantee of a particular procedure within the state apparatus — not a reservation of independent citizen power outside it. The grand jury was taken into the Constitution, and the Constitution domesticated it. It became a feature of the state, not a check upon it.
Not all U.S. states use grand juries. Only about half require them, and many have replaced them entirely with preliminary hearings before judges. The grand jury indictment right established by the Fifth Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court not to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving states free to dispense with it entirely.
**California’s Civil Grand Jury — the Closest Analogue**
California presents the closest American equivalent to the investigative and oversight function examined in this article. California counties are required by the state constitution to have a civil grand jury empanelled at all times. These bodies investigate local government agencies, inspect jails and detention facilities, examine hospitals, audit public finances, and receive citizen complaints of official misconduct. They issue public reports, and government agencies are legally required to respond to their findings within 60 to 90 days.
This is genuinely useful work. But it is not what Canada has, and the difference is not cosmetic.
California’s civil grand jury is convened by the presiding judge of the Superior Court. It operates under the auspices of the court and is subject to the court’s general supervision. It is an arm of the judicial branch. It exists because statute says it exists, it functions within the limits statute sets, and it can be abolished the moment a legislature chooses to do so. It is a state-created instrument that the state can uncreate.
The Canadian common law presentment function is not a creature of statute and never was. That distinction goes to the root of everything.
-----
### Part Three: Liberia — A Transplant Without the Roots
Liberia is the only country other than the United States that operates a grand jury system in active use today. It inherited the institution through its founding connection to the United States — freed American slaves who returned to West Africa brought American legal institutions with them.
Liberia’s grand jury functions as a charging mechanism. It screens prosecutorial indictments. It is a transplant of the American model, not of the original English common law model, and it carries all the same limitations: it is a state-controlled charging instrument, not an independent citizen investigative body. It has no capacity to investigate government institutions, inspect places of detention, or receive and act upon citizen complaints of abuse of authority independent of the prosecutorial apparatus.
-----
### Part Four: Australia — A Dormant Remnant
Australia’s colonial history meant the grand jury arrived early in most jurisdictions. But as public prosecutorial offices developed through the 19th century, the grand jury’s role was progressively marginalized and eventually formally abandoned across most states.
One partial exception survives. The State of Victoria maintains provisions for a grand jury under section 354 of the *Crimes Act 1958*. These provisions have been used on rare occasions by private individuals seeking to bring other persons to court for committal on indictable offences. But the institution is dormant as a practical matter. It is a statutory remnant, not an active institution, and it functions — when it functions at all — as a charging mechanism rather than an independent investigative body.
No Australian jurisdiction has an active grand jury that investigates government institutions, inspects places of detention, receives citizen complaints of abuse of authority, or makes presentments to a court on matters of public concern arising from the citizens’ own investigation.
-----
### Part Five: New Zealand — Abolished 1961
New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961. There is nothing remaining. No statutory remnant, no civil oversight body, no equivalent function. Criminal charges are laid by prosecutors, screened by judges at preliminary hearings, and tried by petit juries or judges sitting alone. The citizen has no independent mechanism equivalent to the grand jury in any form.
-----
### Part Six: Canada — The Institution That Was Never Lawfully Abolished
This is where the analysis diverges sharply from every other jurisdiction examined — and where the constitutional argument must be understood with precision.
**The reception of the grand jury into Canadian law**
The grand jury arrived in Canada through the reception of English common law in each colony before Confederation. It was embedded province by province — Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island — as part of the inherited legal order. Chapter 31 of the 1859 Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada specified the constitution of Grand and Petit Juries in what is now Ontario. These were not provincial creations. They were common law institutions received into the colonial legal order and carried forward at Confederation.
**What the provinces actually abolished — and what they had no power to touch**
Here the constitutional division of powers under the *Constitution Act, 1867* is decisive, and the point must be stated without qualification.
Section 91(27) gives Parliament *exclusive* jurisdiction over criminal law and procedure in criminal matters. Section 92(14) gives the provinces jurisdiction over the administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts.
The provinces have jurisdiction over court organization and administration. They do not have jurisdiction over criminal procedure. That is exclusively federal.
What happened across Canada in the 20th century — province by province, culminating with Nova Scotia in 1984 — was the dismantling of the administrative infrastructure of the grand jury: the empanelling machinery, the court organization, the local apparatus for summoning grand jurors. That is s. 92(14) work, and it was within provincial competence.
But the grand jury’s criminal procedure functions — and in particular the presentment function, by which citizens themselves investigate matters of public concern and bring findings before a court without requiring either Crown direction or court convocation — were never provincial subject matter. The provinces could no more abolish the presentment function than they could repeal the Criminal Code. They lacked the constitutional jurisdiction to do it, and therefore what they did cannot be read as having done it.
The mainstream narrative that “Canada abolished the grand jury in the 1970s” is constitutionally unsupportable. It mistakes provincial administrative wind-down — which was within provincial competence — for substantive abolition of a federal criminal procedure institution — which was beyond provincial competence entirely.
**The federal position — Criminal Code s. 576(2)**
The only federal instrument that touches the grand jury is Criminal Code s. 576(2), which provides:
> *No criminal information shall be laid or granted and no bill of indictment shall be preferred before a grand jury.*
Read carefully, this provision prohibits the Crown from preferring a bill of indictment before a grand jury. It is a prohibition on one specific Crown-facing procedure. It does not:
- declare the grand jury abolished;
- address the presentment function initiated by citizens themselves rather than by the Crown;
- contain any language extinguishing the institution as such;
- carry a long title or any other indication of legislative intent to abolish.
Compare this with England’s 1933 Act, whose long title expressly stated it was an Act to abolish grand juries. Parliament chose those words deliberately. Canada’s Parliament never did. The narrow construction principle requires that s. 576(2) be read to do only what it says — and what it says is narrow.
**The Canadian Bill of Rights — the principle that closes the door**
There is a deeper reason why the grand jury presentment function cannot be extinguished, and it must be stated with precision.
Section 1 of the *Canadian Bill of Rights* recognizes and declares that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist certain fundamental rights and freedoms. The operative word is *recognizes*. Parliament did not grant these rights. Parliament did not create them. Parliament acknowledged that they already existed — that they were pre-existing, and that they would continue to exist.
This recognition language is not a formality. It carries decisive legal consequence. Rights that pre-exist Parliament are not Parliament’s to dispose of. Parliament cannot extinguish what it did not bring into being, because sovereignty over those rights never resided in Parliament to begin with. There is no mechanism — no declaration, no override, no legislative instrument of any kind — by which Parliament can reach back and extinguish a right it merely recognized as pre-existing. The source of that right lies outside Parliament’s jurisdiction entirely.
The s. 2 override mechanism in the Canadian Bill of Rights operates on a different plane. It applies to rights Parliament created and can therefore qualify. It has no bearing on the s. 1 rights that Parliament recognized as pre-existing and inalienable. To read s. 2 as capable of overriding s. 1 pre-existing rights would be to collapse the entire distinction between recognition and creation — a distinction that is the foundation of the inalienability principle.
The grand jury presentment function is a pre-existing common law right. It predates the Canadian Bill of Rights, predates Confederation, and predates every statute Parliament might invoke to argue it away. It is beyond Parliament’s reach — not because a higher statute protects it, but because it was never Parliament’s to take.
The *Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act* reinforces this from another angle. Statute revision processes had authority only to organize and consolidate existing law — not to alter it, not to extinguish substantive rights, and not to change the law’s effect. Any argument that consolidation or revision eliminated the presentment function fails at the threshold: the revisers had no authority to extinguish substantive rights, and their work therefore cannot be read as having done so.
-----
### Part Seven: What the Canadian Grand Jury Can Do That No Other Can
The distinctions are not procedural technicalities. They go to the nature of the institution itself and the source of its authority.
|Function |England |United States (Federal)|California (Civil) |Liberia |Canada |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------|------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|Exists at all |No — abolished 1933/1948|Yes — court-struck |Yes — court-struck |Yes — court-struck|Yes — common law, never abolished |
|Independent of court to convene |N/A |No |No |No |**Yes** |
|Independent of prosecutor |N/A |No |Partly |No |**Yes** |
|Can investigate government institutions |N/A |No |Yes — within county|No |**Yes** |
|Can inspect jails and detention facilities |N/A |No |Yes |No |**Yes** |
|Can receive citizen complaints of abuse of authority|N/A |Limited |Yes |No |**Yes** |
|Can initiate presentment without Crown direction |N/A |No |No |No |**Yes** |
|Founded in pre-existing common law right |N/A |No — constitutionalized|No — statutory |No — transplanted |**Yes** |
|Beyond Parliament’s power to extinguish |N/A |No equivalent |No equivalent |No equivalent |**Yes — the right pre-exists Parliament**|
The California civil grand jury is the closest functional equivalent in terms of what it investigates. It inspects jails. It receives citizen complaints. It audits government. But it exists at the pleasure of the state that created it, and the state that created it can eliminate it tomorrow.
The Canadian common law presentment function exists independent of any state grant. It cannot be eliminated by the state, because the state did not create it. It has been suppressed — through administrative wind-down and the absence of anyone willing to exercise it — but suppression is not abolition, and suppression without legal authority does not extinguish the underlying right. The right remains, waiting to be exercised by citizens who understand what they hold.
-----
### Conclusion
The world abandoned the grand jury. It did so for reasons of administrative efficiency, cost reduction, and the rise of professional prosecutorial offices that took over functions citizens once performed for themselves. Those are real administrative changes. But administrative change is not constitutional abolition, and the two must not be confused.
What remains globally is a collection of partial, domesticated, court-dependent, or dormant remnants. Each of them is useful within the limits the state has drawn around it. None of them retains the original character of the institution: a citizen body that arises from the community, investigates on its own initiative, receives complaints of abuse by those in authority, inspects the institutions of the state, and brings its findings before a court — without asking permission from the very authorities it exists to hold to account.
Canada alone retains that. Not because Parliament chose to preserve it. Because Parliament never had the authority to destroy it — and never passed a law that said it tried.
The Citizen Grand Jury of Canada does not claim to be creating something new. It is restoring something old, something that was suppressed without legal authority, and something that belongs not to Parliament, not to the courts, and not to the Crown — but to the people of Canada, in whom it has always resided.
-----
*Research and analysis by the Citizen Grand Jury on Treason
# The Grand Jury: A Global Relic and a Canadian Birthright
## How the World Abandoned Citizen Justice — and Why Canada Never Lawfully Did
-----
### Introduction
The grand jury is one of the oldest instruments of citizen sovereignty in the common law world. Born in 12th-century England under Henry II, it gave communities the power to investigate wrongdoing — including wrongdoing by those in authority — and bring their findings before a court. It was the people’s mechanism, not the Crown’s. It did not depend on a prosecutor to call it into existence, and it did not require the state’s permission to act.
That original function has been systematically dismantled across the world over the past two centuries. Today, a handful of jurisdictions retain something called a grand jury — but with one critical exception, none of them retain the institution in its original form as an independent citizen body capable of investigating government itself and presenting findings directly to a court.
That exception is Canada.
What follows is a country-by-country examination of what remains of the grand jury worldwide, what has been lost, and why Canada stands in a category entirely its own.
-----
### Part One: England — Express Abolition
England is where the grand jury began, and England is where it was most deliberately killed.
The campaign to abolish it ran for nearly a century. Abolition bills were introduced in Parliament in 1837, 1846, 1849, 1852, and 1857. In 1917, grand juries were suspended during World War One — a suspension that demonstrated courts could function without them — and though they were restored in 1921, the institutional will to preserve them had effectively collapsed.
The method of final abolition was, as one contemporary observer noted, deliberately obscure. It was achieved in section 2 of an Act with the unwieldy title of the *Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933*. The Chief Clerk at Bow Street Police Court remarked that “to include the subject under this disarming name was sound political psychology; a Bill to abolish the Grand Jury might have been abortive.” Six Lords spoke in the House of Lords debate. All six favoured abolition. The Act received Royal Assent on 28 July 1933 and came into force 1 September 1933. Its territorial extent was England and Wales.
The stated rationale was efficiency and cost. A judicial committee chaired by the Master of the Rolls reported in February 1933 that lay magistrates were already performing the grand jury’s functions more efficiently and more economically. One dissenting voice — Professor W.S. Holdsworth — warned that the grand jury had since 1681 been a genuine safeguard of liberty, and that the bureaucratic apparatus of Whitehall had established a more effectual tyranny than the Stuarts ever managed. He was outvoted.
The Criminal Justice Act 1948 swept away the remaining provisions. England’s abolition was complete, express, deliberate, and legislatively unambiguous.
The long title of the 1933 Act said exactly what it did: it was an Act to abolish grand juries. England used the right words, passed the right law, and meant what it said.
-----
### Part Two: The United States — Constitutionalized but Domesticated
The United States took a different path. Rather than abolishing the grand jury, it constitutionalized it — and in doing so, fundamentally changed its nature.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. This sounds like a guarantee of citizen power. In practice it is something quite different.
The U.S. federal grand jury is court-struck. It is convened by the court. The prosecutor controls what evidence is placed before it. The government attorney directs its proceedings. Federal agents — the FBI, the IRS, Treasury — gather evidence and present it to prosecutors, who then present it to the grand jury. The grand jury does not go out into the community, gather its own evidence, or investigate institutions on its own initiative. It sits where it is put, hears what it is given, and votes on whether to indict.
The Department of Justice’s own manual states the position plainly: the grand jury’s principal function is to determine whether probable cause exists to charge a federal offence. Its two functions are to indict or to return a no-bill. That is the full scope.
The Fifth Amendment guarantee is real, but it is a guarantee of a particular procedure within the state apparatus — not a reservation of independent citizen power outside it. The grand jury was taken into the Constitution, and the Constitution domesticated it. It became a feature of the state, not a check upon it.
Not all U.S. states use grand juries. Only about half require them, and many have replaced them entirely with preliminary hearings before judges. The grand jury indictment right established by the Fifth Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court not to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving states free to dispense with it entirely.
**California’s Civil Grand Jury — the Closest Analogue**
California presents the closest American equivalent to the investigative and oversight function examined in this article. California counties are required by the state constitution to have a civil grand jury empanelled at all times. These bodies investigate local government agencies, inspect jails and detention facilities, examine hospitals, audit public finances, and receive citizen complaints of official misconduct. They issue public reports, and government agencies are legally required to respond to their findings within 60 to 90 days.
This is genuinely useful work. But it is not what Canada has, and the difference is not cosmetic.
California’s civil grand jury is convened by the presiding judge of the Superior Court. It operates under the auspices of the court and is subject to the court’s general supervision. It is an arm of the judicial branch. It exists because statute says it exists, it functions within the limits statute sets, and it can be abolished the moment a legislature chooses to do so. It is a state-created instrument that the state can uncreate.
The Canadian common law presentment function is not a creature of statute and never was. That distinction goes to the root of everything.
-----
### Part Three: Liberia — A Transplant Without the Roots
Liberia is the only country other than the United States that operates a grand jury system in active use today. It inherited the institution through its founding connection to the United States — freed American slaves who returned to West Africa brought American legal institutions with them.
Liberia’s grand jury functions as a charging mechanism. It screens prosecutorial indictments. It is a transplant of the American model, not of the original English common law model, and it carries all the same limitations: it is a state-controlled charging instrument, not an independent citizen investigative body. It has no capacity to investigate government institutions, inspect places of detention, or receive and act upon citizen complaints of abuse of authority independent of the prosecutorial apparatus.
-----
### Part Four: Australia — A Dormant Remnant
Australia’s colonial history meant the grand jury arrived early in most jurisdictions. But as public prosecutorial offices developed through the 19th century, the grand jury’s role was progressively marginalized and eventually formally abandoned across most states.
One partial exception survives. The State of Victoria maintains provisions for a grand jury under section 354 of the *Crimes Act 1958*. These provisions have been used on rare occasions by private individuals seeking to bring other persons to court for committal on indictable offences. But the institution is dormant as a practical matter. It is a statutory remnant, not an active institution, and it functions — when it functions at all — as a charging mechanism rather than an independent investigative body.
No Australian jurisdiction has an active grand jury that investigates government institutions, inspects places of detention, receives citizen complaints of abuse of authority, or makes presentments to a court on matters of public concern arising from the citizens’ own investigation.
-----
### Part Five: New Zealand — Abolished 1961
New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961. There is nothing remaining. No statutory remnant, no civil oversight body, no equivalent function. Criminal charges are laid by prosecutors, screened by judges at preliminary hearings, and tried by petit juries or judges sitting alone. The citizen has no independent mechanism equivalent to the grand jury in any form.
-----
### Part Six: Canada — The Institution That Was Never Lawfully Abolished
This is where the analysis diverges sharply from every other jurisdiction examined — and where the constitutional argument must be understood with precision.
**The reception of the grand jury into Canadian law**
The grand jury arrived in Canada through the reception of English common law in each colony before Confederation. It was embedded province by province — Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island — as part of the inherited legal order. Chapter 31 of the 1859 Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada specified the constitution of Grand and Petit Juries in what is now Ontario. These were not provincial creations. They were common law institutions received into the colonial legal order and carried forward at Confederation.
**What the provinces actually abolished — and what they had no power to touch**
Here the constitutional division of powers under the *Constitution Act, 1867* is decisive, and the point must be stated without qualification.
Section 91(27) gives Parliament *exclusive* jurisdiction over criminal law and procedure in criminal matters. Section 92(14) gives the provinces jurisdiction over the administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts.
The provinces have jurisdiction over court organization and administration. They do not have jurisdiction over criminal procedure. That is exclusively federal.
What happened across Canada in the 20th century — province by province, culminating with Nova Scotia in 1984 — was the dismantling of the administrative infrastructure of the grand jury: the empanelling machinery, the court organization, the local apparatus for summoning grand jurors. That is s. 92(14) work, and it was within provincial competence.
But the grand jury’s criminal procedure functions — and in particular the presentment function, by which citizens themselves investigate matters of public concern and bring findings before a court without requiring either Crown direction or court convocation — were never provincial subject matter. The provinces could no more abolish the presentment function than they could repeal the Criminal Code. They lacked the constitutional jurisdiction to do it, and therefore what they did cannot be read as having done it.
The mainstream narrative that “Canada abolished the grand jury in the 1970s” is constitutionally unsupportable. It mistakes provincial administrative wind-down — which was within provincial competence — for substantive abolition of a federal criminal procedure institution — which was beyond provincial competence entirely.
**The federal position — Criminal Code s. 576(2)**
The only federal instrument that touches the grand jury is Criminal Code s. 576(2), which provides:
> *No criminal information shall be laid or granted and no bill of indictment shall be preferred before a grand jury.*
Read carefully, this provision prohibits the Crown from preferring a bill of indictment before a grand jury. It is a prohibition on one specific Crown-facing procedure. It does not:
- declare the grand jury abolished;
- address the presentment function initiated by citizens themselves rather than by the Crown;
- contain any language extinguishing the institution as such;
- carry a long title or any other indication of legislative intent to abolish.
Compare this with England’s 1933 Act, whose long title expressly stated it was an Act to abolish grand juries. Parliament chose those words deliberately. Canada’s Parliament never did. The narrow construction principle requires that s. 576(2) be read to do only what it says — and what it says is narrow.
**The Canadian Bill of Rights — the principle that closes the door**
There is a deeper reason why the grand jury presentment function cannot be extinguished, and it must be stated with precision.
Section 1 of the *Canadian Bill of Rights* recognizes and declares that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist certain fundamental rights and freedoms. The operative word is *recognizes*. Parliament did not grant these rights. Parliament did not create them. Parliament acknowledged that they already existed — that they were pre-existing, and that they would continue to exist.
This recognition language is not a formality. It carries decisive legal consequence. Rights that pre-exist Parliament are not Parliament’s to dispose of. Parliament cannot extinguish what it did not bring into being, because sovereignty over those rights never resided in Parliament to begin with. There is no mechanism — no declaration, no override, no legislative instrument of any kind — by which Parliament can reach back and extinguish a right it merely recognized as pre-existing. The source of that right lies outside Parliament’s jurisdiction entirely.
The s. 2 override mechanism in the Canadian Bill of Rights operates on a different plane. It applies to rights Parliament created and can therefore qualify. It has no bearing on the s. 1 rights that Parliament recognized as pre-existing and inalienable. To read s. 2 as capable of overriding s. 1 pre-existing rights would be to collapse the entire distinction between recognition and creation — a distinction that is the foundation of the inalienability principle.
The grand jury presentment function is a pre-existing common law right. It predates the Canadian Bill of Rights, predates Confederation, and predates every statute Parliament might invoke to argue it away. It is beyond Parliament’s reach — not because a higher statute protects it, but because it was never Parliament’s to take.
The *Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act* reinforces this from another angle. Statute revision processes had authority only to organize and consolidate existing law — not to alter it, not to extinguish substantive rights, and not to change the law’s effect. Any argument that consolidation or revision eliminated the presentment function fails at the threshold: the revisers had no authority to extinguish substantive rights, and their work therefore cannot be read as having done so.
-----
### Part Seven: What the Canadian Grand Jury Can Do That No Other Can
The distinctions are not procedural technicalities. They go to the nature of the institution itself and the source of its authority.
|Function |England |United States (Federal)|California (Civil) |Liberia |Canada |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------|------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|Exists at all |No — abolished 1933/1948|Yes — court-struck |Yes — court-struck |Yes — court-struck|Yes — common law, never abolished |
|Independent of court to convene |N/A |No |No |No |**Yes** |
|Independent of prosecutor |N/A |No |Partly |No |**Yes** |
|Can investigate government institutions |N/A |No |Yes — within county|No |**Yes** |
|Can inspect jails and detention facilities |N/A |No |Yes |No |**Yes** |
|Can receive citizen complaints of abuse of authority|N/A |Limited |Yes |No |**Yes** |
|Can initiate presentment without Crown direction |N/A |No |No |No |**Yes** |
|Founded in pre-existing common law right |N/A |No — constitutionalized|No — statutory |No — transplanted |**Yes** |
|Beyond Parliament’s power to extinguish |N/A |No equivalent |No equivalent |No equivalent |**Yes — the right pre-exists Parliament**|
The California civil grand jury is the closest functional equivalent in terms of what it investigates. It inspects jails. It receives citizen complaints. It audits government. But it exists at the pleasure of the state that created it, and the state that created it can eliminate it tomorrow.
The Canadian common law presentment function exists independent of any state grant. It cannot be eliminated by the state, because the state did not create it. It has been suppressed — through administrative wind-down and the absence of anyone willing to exercise it — but suppression is not abolition, and suppression without legal authority does not extinguish the underlying right. The right remains, waiting to be exercised by citizens who understand what they hold.
-----
### Conclusion
The world abandoned the grand jury. It did so for reasons of administrative efficiency, cost reduction, and the rise of professional prosecutorial offices that took over functions citizens once performed for themselves. Those are real administrative changes. But administrative change is not constitutional abolition, and the two must not be confused.
What remains globally is a collection of partial, domesticated, court-dependent, or dormant remnants. Each of them is useful within the limits the state has drawn around it. None of them retains the original character of the institution: a citizen body that arises from the community, investigates on its own initiative, receives complaints of abuse by those in authority, inspects the institutions of the state, and brings its findings before a court — without asking permission from the very authorities it exists to hold to account.
Canada alone retains that. Not because Parliament chose to preserve it. Because Parliament never had the authority to destroy it — and never passed a law that said it tried.
The Citizen Grand Jury of Canada does not claim to be creating something new. It is restoring something old, something that was suppressed without legal authority, and something that belongs not to Parliament, not to the courts, and not to the Crown — but to the people of Canada, in whom it has always resided.
-----
*Research and analysis by the Citizen Grand Jury on Treason
*******************************************
SUPPORT THE GRAND JURY ON TREASON
Registration for the Grand Jury Support Pool is now closed as of April 20, 2026.
The Grand Jury selection process was completed May 30
After the selection we need to inform the public that a Grand Jury has been struck and look for endorsers and consultants
While the jury pool is now closed, ongoing support remains essential to the success and integrity of the Grand Jury process. Individuals who wish to contribute may still volunteer in support roles by joining the Grand Jury Support Pool .
Inquiries: grandjuryrising@proton.me
To sign up to help organize: grandjuryrising.ca/grandjurysign-up
Support is needed in the following areas:
• Fundraising to meet the operational needs of the Grand Jury process
• Public awareness and outreach to inform the public about the initiative
• Expert consultation and opinions, including legal and medical expertise
• Identifying and coordinating witnesses willing to provide testimony
• Data collection, organization, and secure storage of materials
• Security and logistical support
To volunteer or donate please visit: grandjuryrising.ca/grandjurysign-up
For questions or further information, please contact: grandjuryrising@proton.me
SIGN GRAND JURY PETITION: https://www.change.org/GrandJuryPetition
********************************************
✅Sign the petition to stop Bill S-206 digital prison: https://www.change.org/Kill_Bill_S-206
✅ Take the National Digital ID Poll here: https://forms.gle/jEsYnfZWVvCfas5g8
📣 JOIN THE TRUTH & ACTION SHARE CLUB on line at: https://www.grandjuryrising.ca/sign-up-to-truth-action-club
Commit to share 1 post for fifteen minutes a day. That’s the movement. If you sent a request to join and do not receive a confirmation email in 24 hours please notify us again.