INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section deems an accused to have absconded if they have been accused of an indictable offense, a warrant has been issued for their arrest, and attempts to arrest them have been unsuccessful for six months.
SECTION WORDING
490.2(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), an accused is deemed to have absconded in connection with the indictable offence if (a) an information has been laid alleging the commission of the offence by the accused, (b) a warrant for the arrest of the accused has been issued in relation to that information, and (c) reasonable attempts to arrest the accused under the warrant have been unsuccessful during a period of six months beginning on the day on which the warrant was issued, and the accused is deemed to have so absconded on the last day of that six month period.
EXPLANATION
Section 490.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada explains the circumstances under which an accused is regarded as having absconded in relation to an indictable offence. The section states that an accused is considered to have absconded if three conditions are met. Firstly, an information must have been laid accusing the accused of the offence. Secondly, a warrant for the arrest of the accused must have been issued based on that information. Finally, reasonable efforts to arrest the accused under the warrant must have been unsuccessful for a period of six months starting from the day when the warrant was issued. This section is significant because it affects the way in which the criminal justice system deals with accused persons who are alleged to have committed serious offences. When an accused is deemed to have absconded, they are essentially evading the legal process, and this can have serious consequences for their case. For example, under section 719 of the Criminal Code of Canada, an accused who absconds may have their bail revoked or forfeited. Overall, section 490.2(3) underscores the importance of cooperation with law enforcement in the criminal justice system. The section emphasizes that individuals cannot simply evade responsibility for alleged crimes by avoiding arrest or failing to appear in court. Instead, they must engage with the legal process and take responsibility for their actions.
COMMENTARY
Section 490.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines what constitutes absconding in connection with an indictable offence. This section states that if an information has been laid against an accused for an indictable offence and a warrant for their arrest has been issued, then the accused is deemed to have absconded from justice if reasonable attempts to arrest them under the warrant have been unsuccessful for a period of six months. This provision is crucial in ensuring that individuals facing criminal charges do not evade the judicial process and are held accountable for their actions. The provision is designed to prevent accused individuals from absconding or fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid facing the consequences of their alleged offence. This is a very serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the justice system and the rule of law. It is important that individuals who have been accused of a crime are held accountable for their actions, and this provision helps ensure that justice is served. The provision sets out a clear process for determining when an accused is deemed to have absconded. The process involves three steps: first, an information must be laid against the accused; second, a warrant for their arrest must be issued in relation to that information; and finally, reasonable attempts to arrest the accused under the warrant must have been unsuccessful for a period of six months. This process is both clear and reasonable, giving the accused ample opportunity to avoid being deemed to have absconded. One important aspect of this provision is the requirement that reasonable attempts to arrest the accused must have been made. This means that law enforcement must use reasonable efforts to locate and apprehend the accused, including using their powers to search for and arrest the accused. This requirement helps to ensure that the accused is not unfairly deemed to have absconded, simply because law enforcement failed to make reasonable efforts to locate and apprehend them. Another important aspect of this provision is the strict time limit for determining when an accused is deemed to have absconded. The six-month period is a reasonable time frame, giving law enforcement ample opportunity to locate and apprehend the accused. This time limit also ensures that an accused person is not left in legal limbo indefinitely, as the judicial process cannot proceed until the accused is apprehended. In conclusion, Section 490.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision in ensuring that individuals facing criminal charges are held accountable for their actions. This provision helps to prevent accused individuals from escaping justice by fleeing the jurisdiction. By setting out a clear process for determining when an accused is deemed to have absconded, and by requiring reasonable efforts to locate and apprehend the accused, this provision helps to ensure that justice is served.
STRATEGY
When dealing with Section 490.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are a number of strategic considerations that should be taken into account in order to best navigate the complexities of the legal system. Some of the key factors to keep in mind include the nature of the crime in question, the specifics of the case at hand, and the potential consequences of using this particular section of the Criminal Code. One of the most important strategic considerations when dealing with Section 490.2(3) is the nature of the crime that has been committed. This section of the Criminal Code only applies to indictable offences, which are crimes that are considered to be the most serious in nature. These may include crimes such as murder, fraud, or sexual assault. As a result, any defense strategy that is developed must take into account the severity of the crime and the potential consequences for the accused if they are convicted. Another important consideration is the specifics of the case at hand. For example, it may be necessary to evaluate the strength of the evidence that has been presented against the accused, as well as any potential mitigating factors that could be used to reduce the severity of the offence. Similarly, it may be necessary to evaluate the likelihood of success if the case were to go to trial, taking into account factors such as the strength of the prosecution's case and the credibility of any witnesses. In some cases, the best strategy may be to take advantage of Section 490.2(3) itself in order to avoid a trial and potential conviction. This section of the Criminal Code allows an accused to be deemed to have absconded if they cannot be located after six months, which can be a useful tool for avoiding a trial if the prosecution is not able to locate the accused. However, it is important to note that using this strategy can have potential consequences, including the fact that the accused will be considered a fugitive and subject to potential arrest if they are ever located. Other potential strategies that can be used when dealing with Section 490.2(3) include filing a motion for dismissal of the charges or negotiating a plea bargain with the prosecution. In some cases, it may be possible to use the threat of taking advantage of the absconding provision in order to negotiate a more favorable plea deal, such as a reduced sentence or a lesser charge. In summary, when dealing with Section 490.2(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are a number of strategic considerations that should be taken into account in order to best navigate the complexities of the legal system. These considerations include the severity of the crime, the specifics of the case at hand, and the potential consequences of using this particular section of the Criminal Code. Some potential strategies that can be employed include taking advantage of the absconding provision, filing a motion for dismissal or negotiating a plea bargain with the prosecution. Ultimately, the best strategy will depend on the specifics of the case, the goals of the accused, and the advice of legal counsel.