Who would make criminal law, run prosecutions, and keep courts operating after independence?

Short answer

What this means for Albertans

The present system splits criminal justice between Canadian and Alberta institutions. The Constitution Act, 1867 assigns Parliament authority over criminal law and criminal procedure, while provinces have authority over the administration of justice in the province, including constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts [1]. The Criminal Code is federal law today [2]. Alberta already operates court services and a Crown prosecution service within that Canadian framework [4][5].

The pro-independence case says that independence would let Alberta make criminal law directly instead of administering someone else's Criminal Code. It argues that Alberta could pass continuity legislation, keep courts sitting, preserve existing proceedings and orders, and negotiate temporary arrangements for appeals, extradition, prisoner transfers, policing data, and cross-border enforcement.

The anti-independence / pro-federation case says the same division of powers is a warning label. Criminal law, court jurisdiction, prosecutions, sentencing, prisons, warrants, records, appeals, Charter-style rights, Indigenous rights, and Canada-facing cooperation are operating law. They cannot be made reliable by saying "continuity" unless the new legal authority, institutions, judges, prosecutors, budgets, and intergovernmental agreements are in place.

What each side gets right

• Pro-independence brief: the strongest case for a staged Alberta criminal-law and court-continuity plan.
• Anti-independence / pro-federation brief: the strongest case that justice-system continuity should not be assumed without binding legal authority and tested institutions.

What would have to be decided

• Who writes criminal law: would Alberta copy the Criminal Code at independence, amend it immediately, or negotiate continued Canadian application during a transition [1][2]?
• Who prosecutes cases: Alberta has a prosecution service today, but its post-independence mandate, offence book, appeal authority, files, disclosure systems, staffing, and relationship with police would need legal continuity [5].
• Which courts hear which cases: Alberta court operations exist today, but independence would require authority for trial courts, superior-court-style functions, appeals, judicial appointments, court rules, enforcement of orders, and recognition of pending proceedings [4].
• What happens on day one: charges, warrants, bail orders, probation, victim services, custody, fines, records, and appeals need transition rules so ordinary cases do not fall into jurisdictional gaps.
• External cooperation: Canada and other governments would still control their own extradition, mutual legal assistance, border enforcement, and recognition decisions.
• Public proof: the useful evidence would be draft continuity statutes, court-transition legislation, prosecution memoranda, judge and prosecutor staffing plans, custody agreements, appeal rules, and signed Canada-Alberta justice agreements.

What survives both arguments

• Neutral synthesis: start here for what both sides can safely say from current sources.