INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
An order made under subsections (5) to (7) does not take effect until the time for final appeal has expired.
SECTION WORDING
320.1(9) No order made under subsections (5) to (7) takes effect until the time for final appeal has expired.
EXPLANATION
Section 320.1(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that governs the timing of orders made under subsections (5) to (7) of the same section. These subsections relate to the imposition of various sanctions on individuals who are convicted of impaired driving offenses, including fines, imprisonment, and driving prohibitions. The purpose of Section 320.1(9) is to ensure that any orders made under subsections (5) to (7) do not take effect until the time for final appeal has expired. This means that the orders will not be implemented until the convicted person has exhausted all of their legal appeals. The rationale behind this provision is to protect the rights of accused persons in Canada, who enjoy the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. By delaying the enforcement of orders made under subsections (5) to (7), the law ensures that accused persons have ample time to exercise their legal rights and challenge the validity of their convictions. This provision also reflects Canada's commitment to the rule of law and the principles of fundamental justice. It underscores the importance of ensuring that all accused persons are treated fairly and equally under the law, and that their right to appeal is not unduly restricted or curtailed. In summary, Section 320.1(9) plays a crucial role in ensuring that the rights of accused persons are fully protected in the context of impaired driving offenses. It ensures that any orders made under subsections (5) to (7) are subject to full and fair legal review, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness that are fundamental to Canadian society.
COMMENTARY
Section 320.1(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that outlines the conditions under which orders made under subsections (5) to (7) of the same section can take effect. This section applies specifically to orders made regarding the forfeiture of property that has been used in connection with certain criminal offenses. To understand why this provision is necessary, it is important to first examine the broader context of the Criminal Code's forfeiture regime. The goal of the forfeiture regime is to prevent individuals from profiting from crime and to ensure that they do not have access to the resources (i.e. money, property, vehicles, etc.) that they used to commit crimes. When law enforcement officials suspect that an individual has used property to commit a crime or has obtained property as a result of committing a crime, they can seek a forfeiture order. This type of order allows the government to seize and ultimately dispose of the property in question. While forfeiture is intended to be a powerful tool in the fight against organized crime and other types of criminal activity, it is also a process that can have significant consequences for innocent individuals. For example, if a family member uses a car for criminal activity without the owner's knowledge, that car may still be subject to seizure and disposal. To protect the rights of individuals who may be impacted by a forfeiture order, the Criminal Code includes several provisions that govern the circumstances under which such orders can be made. One such provision is section 320.1(9), which stipulates that no order made under subsections (5) to (7) of the same section can take effect until the time for final appeal has expired. Subsections (5) to (7) of section 320.1 outline the circumstances under which a court can order the forfeiture of property that has been used in connection with certain criminal offenses. Subsection (5) allows for forfeiture of property that has been used or is likely to be used as an instrument of an offense, while subsection (6) covers property that is the proceeds of an offense. Subsection (7) allows for forfeiture of property that is the subject of an offense. The fact that no order made under these subsections can take effect until the time for final appeal has expired is important for a number of reasons. First, it provides individuals with an opportunity to appeal a forfeiture order if they believe it has been improperly made. This is critical because, as noted above, forfeiture can have significant consequences for innocent individuals. Allowing time for an appeal ensures that those who have been wrongly impacted by a forfeiture order have a chance to challenge it. Second, this provision helps to ensure that forfeiture orders are made fairly and in accordance with the principles of justice. If an order was allowed to take effect immediately, it could potentially be used as a tool of intimidation or coercion by those in power. By requiring that a final appeal be exhausted before an order takes effect, this provision helps to prevent such abuses of power. Overall, section 320.1(9) is an important provision that helps to ensure that the forfeiture regime in Canada is applied fairly and justly. By allowing time for final appeal, this provision protects the rights of individuals who may have been wrongly caught up in the forfeiture process, while also ensuring that orders are made in accordance with the principles of justice.
STRATEGY
Section 320.1(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada creates an important strategic consideration when dealing with offenders who have been convicted of impaired driving related offenses. Specifically, it states that any order made under subsections 5 to 7, which refer to orders such as driving prohibitions and ignition interlock requirements, will not come into effect until the accused has exhausted all their rights to appeal. This means that if an accused is convicted of an impaired driving offence and receives a disqualification from driving or an order to install an ignition interlock device, they may be able to delay the implementation of these penalties until the appeals process has been completed. This can provide them with additional time to continue to drive or avoid installation of an interlock device, which could potentially lead to further criminal charges. One potential strategy to deal with this delay is to seek an order from the court to have the penalty come into effect immediately. This may be possible in certain circumstances, such as if the accused poses a significant risk to public safety or has a history of impaired driving offences. However, obtaining such an order may be difficult and will require a strong case to be presented to the court. Another strategy is to use the time during the appeals process to prepare for the implementation of the penalty. For example, if an accused is facing a disqualification from driving, they could use the time to arrange alternative transportation for their daily needs, such as work and errands, so that they can continue to function without the ability to drive. Additionally, if an accused is facing an ignition interlock requirement, they could use the time to research and purchase an approved device and arrange for installation prior to the penalty coming into effect. This could help to minimize the disruption to their daily life once the interlock requirement is implemented. Overall, section 320.1(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an important consideration for both the prosecution and defence when dealing with impaired driving related offences. It is important for both sides to understand the implications of this section and to develop effective strategies to deal with the potential delays in implementing penalties.