INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
The court can declare seized items forfeited and dispose of them as directed by the Attorney General if no one shows sufficient cause why they should not be forfeited.
SECTION WORDING
199(3) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, a court, judge, justice or provincial court judge before whom anything that is seized under this section is brought may declare that the thing is forfeited, in which case it shall be disposed of or dealt with as the Attorney General may direct if no person shows sufficient cause why it should not be forfeited.
EXPLANATION
Section 199(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada gives the court, judge, justice, or provincial court judge the power to declare an item seized under this section as forfeited, only if it is not expressly provided otherwise by law. This section deals explicitly with the authority of the judicial system in cases that involve the seizure of items likely to be used for a criminal offense. The provision is aimed at curbing criminal activities by allowing law enforcement officials to seize items believed to be useful in the commission of a crime. Once an item has been seized, the court may declare it forfeited if no one shows sufficient cause why it should not be forfeited. The court's decision will lead to the disposal of the item or the Attorney General's directive on how to deal with the item appropriately. This provision plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system because it enables law enforcement officials to prevent or curtail criminal activities by seizing items that could be used for illegal acts. Section 199(3) reinforces the need for deterrent measures in combating criminal activities, and serves as a tool for enhancing public safety by allowing the government of Canada to tackle criminal organizations and individuals who threaten public peace. In conclusion, Section 199(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that empowers the judicial system to declare seized items as forfeited only if it is not expressly provided otherwise by law. This provision serves as a deterrent to criminal activities and enhances public safety in Canada.
COMMENTARY
Section 199(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada gives power to a court, judge, justice or provincial court judge who has seized an item under this section, to declare it forfeited, if no person can show sufficient cause why it should not be forfeited. Essentially, this section empowers the court to seize or forfeit any item used in the commission of a crime, subject to certain exceptions. The declaration of forfeiture under Section 199(3) is a serious measure that can have significant consequences for the owner of the forfeited item. For example, if a car is forfeited under Section 199(3), the owner may lose their vehicle, even if they were not the one committing the crime. It is important to note that forfeiture is a civil action, and it is not dependent on the outcome of a criminal trial. This means that an item can be forfeited, even if no criminal charges are laid or if the accused is acquitted. The purpose of this section is to remove from circulation any item that may be used to commit a crime, or that was used in the commission of a crime. The section also serves as a deterrent to would-be offenders, who are less likely to use or possess tools of the crime, knowing they may be confiscated and forfeited to the state. In order for an item to be forfeited under Section 199(3), a person must show "sufficient cause" why it should not be forfeited. This is an important safeguard to ensure that the owner of the item has an opportunity to present their case and defend their property. Examples of "sufficient cause" could include demonstrating that the item was not used in the commission of a crime, or demonstrating that the owner was not aware that the item was being used in the commission of a crime. In practice, the person who has an item seized under this section is typically not the owner of the item. In many cases, for example, the car used in a getaway after a crime will be seized, and the person driving the car may not be the owner. In such cases, the owner of the car has a right to show sufficient cause why the car should not be forfeited. This could include demonstrating that the car was not used in the commission of a crime, or demonstrating that they were not aware that the car was being used in the commission of a crime. Some critics argue that Section 199(3) gives too much power to law enforcement officials, who may not always have sufficient grounds to seize an item. They argue that this section can be abused, and that law enforcement officials may seize items without following proper procedures or without sufficient evidence. Additionally, it is argued that the section can be used to seize items that are not actually used in the commission of a crime, such as a vehicle that is nearby a crime scene but not used in the actual commission of the crime. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the constitutionality of this section, stating that it is a necessary and proportionate measure to combat crime. Ultimately, Section 199(3) serves an important purpose in the criminal justice system. It allows for the removal of tools of the crime from circulation, and serves as a deterrent to would-be offenders. However, the section must be used judiciously, and it is important to ensure that proper procedural safeguards are in place to protect the rights of the accused, especially the owners of the forfeited property.
STRATEGY
Section 199(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the courts with the power to declare that anything seized under this section is forfeited. This is a powerful tool in the hands of the prosecutor, and it can have serious consequences for the accused. The broad language of this provision allows for a wide range of interpretations, making it a contentious issue in criminal trials. There are several strategic considerations when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada. In this context, a defence lawyer must take several steps to protect their client, including gathering information, analyzing the evidence against their client, and developing an effective strategy. The first strategic consideration is to gather information about the seized property. It is important to determine the nature and value of the property, whether it was legally seized, and whether it is connected to the criminal charges against the accused. This information can be obtained through the disclosure process and by interviewing witnesses and investigators. The second strategic consideration is to analyze the evidence against the accused. The defence lawyer must determine whether the evidence is admissible in court, whether the prosecution can prove ownership of the seized property, and whether the accused had any knowledge of the property. The third strategic consideration is to develop an effective strategy for defending the accused. The lawyer should consider challenging the admissibility of the seized property as evidence, arguing that the seizure was unlawful, or presenting evidence to show that the accused did not have any knowledge of the property. Another strategy is to negotiate with the prosecution to obtain a plea bargain or to seek alternative sentencing options. In conclusion, dealing with Section 199(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires strategic considerations. A defence lawyer must gather information, analyze the evidence, and develop an effective strategy to protect their client from losing valuable property. By taking these steps, a defendant can ensure that their rights are protected and that they receive a fair trial.