section 162(6)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Acts that serve the public good and do not extend beyond it cannot lead to a conviction under section 162(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

SECTION WORDING

162(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good and do not extend beyond what serves the public good.

EXPLANATION

Section 162(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows individuals, who may have technically committed an offence under the broader provisions of section 162, to argue that their actions were justified in the name of the public good. This section is often used in the context of cases relating to obscenity, as section 162 deals with offences related to the distribution, possession, or production of obscene materials. While the Criminal Code of Canada is written in a way to broadly prohibit these activities, section 162(6) provides a specific defence for someone who can argue that their actions fall within a narrow range of activities that are intended to serve the public good, and no more. This defence is a somewhat unique aspect of Canadian criminal law, and it is intended to ensure that, in situations where the public interest clearly outweighs any other concerns, individuals are not criminalized for their actions. In essence, section 162(6) means that individuals who may have technically committed an offence under section 162 can make an argument that their actions were not only justified, but also necessary, in the drive to promote the public good. This defence is designed to strike a balance between upholding the values of Canadian society while also ensuring that individuals are able to have their say and express themselves as they see fit. Ultimately, section 162(6) plays a crucial role in protecting individual freedoms and promoting the public interest across Canada.

COMMENTARY

Section 162(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that represents a fairly unusual legal principle, as it creates an exception to an otherwise strict prohibition on certain types of activities. Specifically, it provides that individuals who engage in activities that might otherwise be considered offences under this section of the code will not be convicted if their actions serve the public good and do not exceed what is necessary to achieve this purpose. This provision is significant because it reflects a recognition on the part of lawmakers that there may be situations in which what might otherwise be considered illegal activities might be necessary or beneficial for society as a whole. By providing an exception for such cases, the law allows for a measure of flexibility in interpreting its provisions and recognizes that not all situations can be neatly fit into a strict legal framework. At the same time, this provision raises important questions about what exactly counts as serving the public good and how this determination should be made. There is no clear definition of what this term means, and it is likely that courts will interpret it in varying and potentially inconsistent ways, depending on the specifics of each case. One possible interpretation is that the public good should be understood as any action that benefits society as a whole, regardless of whether it might cause harm to some individuals or groups. For example, an activist who engages in civil disobedience to protest an unjust law might argue that their actions serve the public good, even if they are breaking the law and causing inconvenience or disruption to others. Alternatively, the public good could be narrowly construed as only those actions that have a clear, measurable, and provable benefit to society. In this view, a person who engages in an activity that may harm others but produces some other sort of benefit, such as increased revenue or improved efficiency, would not be covered by this exception. Ultimately, the interpretation of what constitutes serving the public good will likely depend on a range of factors, including the context of the activity, the nature of the harm caused, and the broader societal values at stake. This ambiguity may be frustrating for some, as it can make it difficult to predict how courts will interpret and apply this provision in the future. Despite these challenges, Section 162(6) represents an important acknowledgement that the law is not always a perfect reflection of the complexities of the real world. By providing an exception for activities that serve the public good, the law recognizes that sometimes the only way to achieve social justice or progress is to challenge established norms and push the boundaries of what is legally permissible. While this can be uncomfortable and uncertain, it is also an essential part of democratic society, as it encourages innovation, creativity, and progress, even in the face of resistance and opposition.

STRATEGY

Section 162(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a defence to anyone accused of an offence under this section if the acts they committed served the public good and did not extend beyond what was necessary to serve the public good. This provision allows for certain acts that would be considered wrong under normal circumstances to be permitted if they ultimately serve the greater good. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations to keep in mind. One of the key considerations is the nature of the offence and how it relates to the public good. For instance, if the accused was engaging in activities that were intended to protect the environment or promote social justice, it may be easier to argue that the acts served the public good. Additionally, it is important to consider the evidence that may be available to support the argument that the acts were undertaken in the public interest. For example, if the accused had engaged in consultations with experts in the relevant field, such as environmental scientists or social justice campaigners, this may provide strong evidence to argue that the acts were undertaken for the greater good. Another important consideration is how to present the case to the court. Depending on the nature of the offence, it may be more effective to present evidence on the public good as a defence, or to rely on evidence on how the accused's actions were not excessive. In some cases, it may be possible to argue that the accused's actions were the result of necessity, such as if they were acting to prevent harm to people or the environment. Strategies for dealing with section 162(6) will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. In general, however, three main strategies could be employed: 1. Demonstrating public interest: As mentioned earlier, one strategy would be to show that the acts committed by the accused were intended to serve the public good. This can include presenting evidence on how the accused's actions were instrumental in advancing a cause or issue important to the public. This strategy is especially effective in cases related to issues such as climate change or social justice. 2. Avoid unnecessary harm: Another strategy is to show that the accused's actions did not extend beyond what was required to serve the public good. For example, if the accused was involved in an environmental protest, it would be important to demonstrate that there was no undue harm or disruption to the public as a result. 3. Tying acts to greater cause: The final strategy is to show that the accused's actions were necessary to achieve a greater cause or end. For example, if the accused was engaged in a protest against a particular policy, they could argue that this policy was unjust and likely to do more harm than good. In conclusion, section 162(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows for certain acts that would otherwise be considered criminal to be permitted if they serve the public good. Strategic considerations for dealing with this section include understanding the nature of the offence, presenting evidence of public interest, avoiding unnecessary harm, and tying the acts to a greater cause or end. Ultimately, the success of any defence under this section will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the strength of the evidence presented to the court.