(1)  Subject to subsection (2) , a person charged with a crime upon indictment may only dispute the existence of the necessary territorial nexus at the time the person enters a plea on arraignment.

(2)  The judge may allow the person to dispute the existence of the necessary territorial nexus during the trial.

(3)  The judge may require the jury to determine whether the necessary territorial nexus exists even though the issue has not been raised at all in the trial.

(4)  If the existence of the necessary territorial nexus has been disputed on arraignment, the judge may order a jury to be empanelled to determine the issue before the trial.

(5)  A jury empanelled under subsection (4) may be resworn for the trial if it determines that the necessary territorial nexus exists.

(6)  If a jury is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the necessary territorial nexus does not exist –

(a) the jury, subject to subsection (7) , must return a verdict to that effect; and

(b) the accused is to be discharged.

(7)  If the jury, irrespective of whether or not there was a territorial nexus, would find a person not guilty (but not on the ground of insanity), it must return a verdict of not guilty.