Criminal Code of Canada - section 279(1.3) - Sequence of convictions only

section 279(1.3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The only sequence of events considered in a conviction is the order of the convictions.

SECTION WORDING

279(1.3) For the purposes of subsection (1.2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.

EXPLANATION

Section 279(1.3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision related to the interpretation of subsection (1.2), which deals with the imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple convictions. The provision specifies that when considering whether to impose consecutive sentences, the only factor to be considered is the sequence of convictions, i.e. which convictions were made before or after each other. The sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction is not to be taken into account. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the sentencing process is fair and consistent, regardless of the timing of the commission of offences or the order of the convictions. This means that even if an offence was committed before a previous conviction, but the conviction for that offence comes later, the sequence of convictions will still be the determining factor in deciding whether to impose consecutive sentences. The rationale behind this provision is to prevent offenders from benefiting from committing multiple offences by avoiding consecutive sentences, simply because they were committed in a certain order. It also promotes uniformity in sentencing by removing any subjective factors related to the timing of the commission of offences. Overall, section 279(1.3) reinforces the importance of the rule of law, by ensuring that the sentencing process is impartial and based solely on the sequence of convictions, without any outside factors influencing the decision.

COMMENTARY

Section 279(1.3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that was incorporated into the Code in order to provide clarity on the sequence of convictions in sexual assault cases. The section states that where an accused person has been convicted of a previous sexual offence, the court must consider that conviction first before any subsequent convictions. The provision also stipulates that the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction should not be taken into account when considering the conviction order. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the possibility of an accused person being wrongly acquitted or convicted due to technicalities surrounding the sequence of convictions. It also aims to make the judicial process fairer for victims of sexual assault, who may otherwise face the possibility of their attacker being acquitted on a technicality. However, there has been some debate over the usefulness of this provision. Some argue that it does little to address the broader issue of sexual assault and the problems of under-reporting and lack of conviction rates. Critics argue that it does not go far enough to protect victims and that it is too narrow in its focus on the sequence of convictions. For example, some argue that the provision does not take into account the fact that many victims of sexual assault may not report the crime until years after it has occurred. This means that the conviction for the previous offence may have occurred after the subsequent offence, and hence the provision may not be useful in these cases. Additionally, the provision does not consider the severity of the offences committed. For example, an accused person may have been convicted of a minor sexual assault offence previously and then go on to commit a more serious offence later. In such cases, the provision may not be useful in deterring the accused from committing further offences. Despite these criticisms, Section 279(1.3) is an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada. It provides clarity on the legal process in sexual assault cases and helps to ensure that victims receive a fair hearing. However, it should be considered only one aspect of a broader approach to addressing the problem of sexual assault. Public awareness campaigns, education programs, and enhanced support services for victims are also essential in reducing the prevalence of sexual assault in Canadian society. In conclusion, Section 279(1.3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that provides clarity on the sequence of convictions in sexual assault cases. While it is an important provision in ensuring justice for victims of sexual assault, it is not a panacea for the broader issue of sexual assault in Canada. A comprehensive approach that addresses the underlying causes of sexual assault, such as systemic sexism and patriarchal power structures, is essential in reducing the incidence of such crimes.

STRATEGY

Section 279(1.3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a specific provision that deals with the sequencing of convictions when sentencing an offender who has committed more than one offence. The aim of the provision is to ensure that the offender is punished for all offences, regardless of their order of commission. When considering this provision, there are a number of strategic considerations that one should make. One strategic consideration is the timing of the plea bargain. In many cases, an accused person may choose to plead guilty to a particular offence in exchange for a reduced sentence. In such cases, the timing of the plea bargain is crucial. If an accused person pleads guilty to a lesser offence first, they may be sentenced for that offence before the more serious offence they committed. This would result in a lighter sentence than if they had been sentenced for the more serious offence first. As such, it is important to carefully consider the sequencing of any plea bargain in order to maximize the overall sentence. Another strategic consideration is the selection of charges. In some cases, there may be multiple charges that an accused person can be convicted of in relation to the same event. For example, an individual may be charged with both assault and uttering threats in relation to an incident of domestic violence. In such cases, it may be more strategically advantageous to select the charges that are more serious and carry a greater penalty, as they will be sentenced first. A third strategic consideration is the choice of court. Depending on the offences committed, an accused person may be required to appear in different courts. For example, more serious offences may require an appearance in a higher court, where the prosecutor may have more resources and be more aggressive in pushing for a higher sentence. As such, it may be strategically advantageous to seek a plea bargain in a lower court where the prosecutor may be more open to negotiating a reduced sentence. Lastly, when considering Section 279(1.3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is important to carefully consider the nature of any prior convictions. In some cases, an accused person may have already been convicted of similar offences in the past. This would mean that the sequencing of convictions under Section 279(1.3) would likely result in a higher sentence. As such, it may be strategically advantageous to negotiate a plea bargain that avoids an admission of guilt to prior convictions that are similar in nature, in order to avoid a higher sentence. In conclusion, when dealing with Section 279(1.3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are a number of strategic considerations that one should make. These include the timing of plea bargains, the selection of charges, the choice of court, and the nature of any prior convictions. By carefully considering these factors, one can strategically navigate this provision to obtain the best possible sentence for an accused person.