Criminal Code of Canada - section 612(1) - Plea of justification necessary

section 612(1)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The truth of a libel cannot be proven unless the defendant pleads justification, except for cases where the defendant knowingly published a false libel.

SECTION WORDING

612(1) The truth of the matters charged in an alleged libel shall not be inquired into in the absence of a plea of justification under section 611 unless the accused is charged with publishing the libel knowing it to be false, in which case evidence of the truth may be given to negative the allegation that the accused knew that the libel was false.

EXPLANATION

Section 612 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the legal concept of libel, which is defined as a published statement that is untrue and injurious to the reputation of an individual or a group. This section specifies that in the absence of a plea of justification under section 611, the truth of the accused's statements cannot be investigated in court. The section allows for a defendant to plead justification, which means that they can argue that their statement was true, or that they had sufficient reason to believe it was true. This puts the burden of proof on the defendant to provide evidence supporting their claim. However, if the defendant is charged with publishing the libel knowing it to be false, this section allows for evidence of the truth to be presented in court to refute the allegation that the defendant knew the statement was false. In other words, if the defendant is aware that their statement is untrue and publishes it regardless, they cannot use the defense of truth to justify their actions. Overall, this section of the Criminal Code of Canada ensures that individuals' reputation is protected, while also allowing for the presentation of evidence in certain circumstances to ensure that the truth is upheld.

COMMENTARY

Section 612(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code outlines the basic framework for libel defenses in Canada. According to this section, the truth of matters charged in an alleged libel cannot be investigated in the absence of a plea of justification under section 611, unless the accused is charged with publishing the libel knowing it to be false. In the latter situation, evidence of the truth can be presented to refute the allegation that the accused knew the libel was false. Libel is understood to be a defamatory statement that is published to a third party, which causes harm to an individual's reputation. When a person is accused of libel, they are commonly referred to as the defendant. Libel is a serious offence because it can have severe implications on the individual being accused. The victim of libel can be subjected to loss of business or personal relationships, damage to their professional reputation, and emotional distress. As a result, it is important for the courts to properly address libel charges, including ensuring that libel defenses are clear. Section 612(1) of the Criminal Code has received criticism from some critics who believe it is too restrictive. One of the criticisms is that it limits the availability of libel defenses to individuals who plead justification under Section 611. Some critics view this as unfair, as it forces the defendant to actively seek a defense. This can result in a chilling effect on freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right in a democratic society. Others argue that the provision of Section 611, which allows defendants to plead justification, provides courts with a reasonable balance between protecting the right to freedom of expression while also ensuring that individuals are not unfairly accused of libel. This section requires the defendant to prove that the statement was true and that it was in the public interest. The defense of justification is difficult to sustain, as it requires the defendant to provide strong evidence to support their claim. Moreover, it is important to note that Section 612(1) is not an absolute bar to an inquiry into the truth of the libel allegation. In cases where the defendant is charged with publishing a libel knowing it to be false, the truth can be presented to negate the allegation that the accused knew the libel was false. This suggests that the Canadian legal system contemplates a balancing of the rights of the defendant against the rights of the victim, and seeks to provide a fair system that accounts for each individual's fundamental rights. In conclusion, while there has been criticism of Section 612(1) of the Criminal Code, it is important to note that the legal system is not inflexible. The provision recognizes the right to freedom of expression, while also striving to safeguard individuals from the consequences of false statements. It is important for courts to continue to interpret the provision in a balanced and fair way, in line with the principles of Canadian democracy and justice.

STRATEGY

Section 612(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that highlights the importance of the truth in the context of libel law. The section limits the scope of defence by stating that the truth of the matters charged in an alleged libel shall not be inquired into unless a plea of justification is entered. This means that a defendant cannot introduce evidence of the truth of their statements unless they plead justification. In this essay, we will explore some strategic considerations when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code and strategies that could be employed to mitigate its impact. One of the main strategic considerations when dealing with section 612(1) is to carefully assess the evidence available to support a plea of justification. In order to successfully plead justification, the defendant must be able to demonstrate that the statements made in the alleged libel are factual and true. This can be a difficult burden to meet, as the defendant must prove every aspect of the statement to be true. This means that defendants will need to gather as much evidence as possible to support their claims, which can be a time-consuming and expensive process. Defendants may need to hire experts or conduct extensive research to support their claims. Careful preparation and research will be key to successfully pleading justification. Another important strategic consideration when dealing with section 612(1) is to carefully assess the risks involved in pleading justification. If the defendant pleads justification and is unsuccessful in proving the truth of their statements, it could actually make their situation worse. This is because, under section 641(1) of the Criminal Code, if the defendant fails to prove the truth of their statements, the court can find them guilty of the offence of Libel. This means that defendants must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of pleading justification before doing so. One strategy that could be employed to mitigate the impact of section 612(1) is to explore other defences that may be available. For example, the defence of fair comment may be available if the statement in question is an opinion rather than a statement of fact. If the defence of fair comment is successful, the defendant may not need to plead justification at all. Another strategy that could be employed is to consider entering into negotiations with the plaintiff to settle the matter outside of court. If both parties can agree on a settlement, this could save both time and money and avoid the risk of an adverse finding in court. In conclusion, section 612(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that restricts the ability of defendants to plead justification in the absence of a plea. When dealing with this section, defendants must carefully assess the evidence available to support a plea of justification and weigh the risks and benefits of doing so. Other defences, such as fair comment, could be explored to avoid the need to plead justification altogether. Finally, negotiating a settlement with the plaintiff could also be an effective strategy to avoid going to court.