Criminal Code of Canada - section 356(2) - Allegation of value not necessary

section 356(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Value of the object is not necessary to prove in the trial for the offence under this section.

SECTION WORDING

356(2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is not necessary to allege in the indictment or to prove on the trial that anything in respect of which the offence was committed had any value.

EXPLANATION

Section 356(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that exempts the prosecution from proving the value of property in cases where an offence has been committed under section 356 of the Criminal Code. Section 356 deals with the offence of mischief, which involves the wilful damage, destruction, or interference with another person's property. The provision can be interpreted as reflecting the seriousness of the offence of mischief. Although the value of the property can be relevant in assessing the degree of the offence, this is not a crucial element of the offence. By not requiring proof of the value of the property, the provision simplifies the prosecution's burden of proof and avoids placing undue emphasis on the monetary value of the property. Furthermore, section 356(2) prevents defendants who have been charged with the offence of mischief from raising technical defences relating to the value of the property. This is important because the focus of the offence is on the conduct of the accused, rather than the value of the property. By omitting the value element, the prosecution can more easily prove the offence of mischief and ensure that those who engage in acts of damage or destruction are held accountable for their actions, regardless of the value of the property. In summary, section 356(2) serves to simplify the prosecution of the offence of mischief and ensure that defendants are not able to raise defences based on the value of the property. It is a provision that is consistent with the Criminal Code's aim of ensuring that those who engage in criminal conduct are held accountable for their actions, regardless of the value of the property involved.

COMMENTARY

Section 356(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an interesting provision that alters the usual requirement for allegations and proof of the value of a thing in criminal proceedings. It is particularly applicable in cases of theft and fraud, where the prosecution generally needs to establish the value of the property or money stolen or obtained by deceit. However, this section removes the need for such a requirement, allowing for an easier prosecution in certain cases. The section essentially allows for a charge of theft or fraud to be made without the need to prove the value of the property or money taken or obtained. This is a departure from the usual approach in criminal proceedings, where the prosecution must provide evidence of the value of the item in question. This can sometimes be a complicated and time-consuming process, requiring a valuation expert or other specialist to testify in court about the value of the stolen or fraudulently obtained items. The rationale for the provision is to ease the prosecutor's burden of proof and streamline the judicial process. In some cases, establishing the value of the stolen or fraudulently obtained items may be irrelevant to the determination of guilt or innocence. For example, if someone is caught stealing a single can of soda from a convenience store, it may be unnecessary to establish the value of the item in order to prove theft. Similarly, if someone tricks another person out of their credit card information to make fraudulent purchases, the value of the items bought may not be relevant to the crime. However, Section 356(2) has limitations and cannot be used in every case of theft or fraud. For instance, where the value of the item or money is central to the prosecution's argument, such as in cases of large-scale embezzlement or fraud, this provision may not be suitable. The Crown may need to establish the value of the money or property stolen to build a compelling case against the accused. In conclusion, Section 356(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a useful provision that allows for a streamlined process in certain cases of theft and fraud where the value of the stolen item or money may not be central to the prosecution's argument. It provides prosecutors with a tool to charge accused individuals without the need for evidence of the value of the stolen property or money. However, this provision is not a blanket rule that removes the need to establish the value of stolen property or money in all cases. In complex cases where the value of stolen property or money is central to the prosecution, this provision may not apply.

STRATEGY

Section 356(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada creates an important exception to the usual requirement of proving that the property in question had some value. It provides that in proceedings for an offence under this section, it is not necessary to allege in the indictment or to prove on the trial that anything in respect of which the offence was committed had any value. This section is utilized in cases where the value of the property in question is insignificant or irrelevant. There are several strategic considerations that lawyers and litigants must take into account when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada. One such consideration is the potential impact on the charges and ultimate penalties. In some cases, the lack of an allegation or proof of value may lead to a reduction in the charges or penalties imposed upon conviction. For example, in cases involving the theft of low-value items, such as a candy bar or a small amount of cash, the lack of a value requirement may result in a charge of "theft under $5000" rather than "theft over $5000," which carries a more severe punishment. Similarly, a lack of value may be a factor in plea bargaining in some cases. Another strategy that could be employed when dealing with Section 356(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is to use the lack of a value requirement to challenge the Crown's evidence or case. Since the Crown does not have to prove the value of the stolen goods, the defence may argue that the Crown has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that an offence was committed. For instance, the defence may argue that there is no proof that the property was stolen or that the accused had the intent to commit theft. In some cases, Section 356(2) can be used as a way to challenge the legality of a search or seizure. For instance, if an individual was searched or arrested without any evidence that he or she had stolen any valuable property, it may be argued that the search or arrest was unlawful. The lack of a value requirement can be used to argue that the police had no grounds to carry out the search or arrest. Finally, Section 356(2) may be used as a way to limit the amount of evidence that is presented at trial. Since the value of the property is not relevant, it may be possible to exclude or limit evidence related to the value of the stolen goods. This can be advantageous if there are concerns about the admissibility or reliability of this evidence. In conclusion, Section 356(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an exception to the usual requirement of proving that the property in question had some value. This section creates several strategic considerations for lawyers and litigants, including the impact on charges and penalties, the use of a lack of value to challenge the Crown's case, the use of Section 356(2) to challenge the legality of a search or seizure, and the use of Section 356(2) to limit the amount of evidence presented at trial. Overall, Section 356(2) can be an important strategic tool in criminal proceedings where the value of the stolen property is insignificant or irrelevant.