INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section allows evidence of another persons theft conviction to be used to prove an accuseds possession of stolen property.
SECTION WORDING
657.2(1) Where an accused is charged with possession of any property obtained by the commission of an offence, evidence of the conviction or discharge of another person of theft of the property is admissible against the accused, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary is proof that the property was stolen.
EXPLANATION
Section 657.2(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with situations where an accused is charged with possession of property obtained through the commission of an offence. The section allows evidence of the conviction or discharge of another person for theft of the same property to be used against the accused. Essentially, this means that if someone is accused of possessing stolen property, evidence that someone else has already been convicted or discharged of stealing that same property can be used to prove that the property was stolen in the first place. The section also notes that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the fact that another person has been convicted or discharged of stealing the property will be considered proof that the property was indeed stolen. In other words, this will be the default assumption unless the accused can provide evidence to refute it. This rule is aimed at making it easier to prosecute those who possess stolen property. The rationale behind it is that if someone is found in possession of property that has been stolen, it's reasonable to assume that they knew it was stolen and, by possessing it, benefited from the theft. Therefore, evidence that the property was stolen in the first place can help to establish guilt in cases where direct evidence of theft might be difficult to come by. Overall, Section 657.2(1) is an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that can help to facilitate the prosecution of those who possess stolen property. It allows evidence from a related criminal case to be used to establish key facts, making it easier for the prosecution to prove guilt and hold those who have broken the law accountable for their actions.
COMMENTARY
Section 657.2(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a controversial provision that allows evidence of a conviction or discharge of another person for the theft of property to be used against an accused in cases of possession of stolen property. In essence, the section allows the Crown to use the prior conviction of another person to prove that the property in question was stolen, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This provision was introduced as part of a package of anti-organized crime laws in 1997, aimed at making it easier to prosecute property offences by reducing the burden on the Crown to prove the origins of the property in question. Prior to the introduction of this section, the Crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or ought to have known that the property was stolen. This was often difficult to do, especially in cases where the accused claimed to have bought the property in good faith, or had no knowledge of its illicit origins. Section 657.2(1) shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, and creates a presumption that the property was stolen unless the accused can provide evidence to the contrary. This has been criticized by some as a violation of the presumption of innocence, and as an unfair burden on defendants who may have no way of proving the legitimacy of the property in their possession. Moreover, the provision does not require that the prior conviction or discharge be for the theft of the specific property in question. In other words, a prior conviction for the theft of a similar type of property may be used to prove the stolen nature of the property in question. This raises concerns about reliability and relevance of the evidence, and may lead to wrongful convictions. On the other hand, proponents of the provision argue that it is a necessary tool in the fight against organized crime, and that it helps to deter individuals from buying or possessing stolen property. They also argue that the provision is based on a sound legal principle - that it is reasonable to infer that someone in possession of stolen property knew or ought to have known that the property was stolen. Additionally, they point out that the provision does not apply in cases where the accused can provide evidence to the contrary, and that it is still up to the Crown to prove the other elements of the offence (such as knowledge and intent). In conclusion, Section 657.2(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a controversial provision that shifts the burden of proof onto the accused in cases of possession of stolen property. While it has been criticized as a violation of the presumption of innocence and as an unfair burden on defendants, it has also been supported as a necessary tool in the fight against organized crime. Ultimately, the effectiveness and fairness of the provision will depend on how it is applied by the courts, and on whether it strikes a balance between the need to protect property rights and the need to protect individual rights.
STRATEGY
When charged with possession of property obtained by the commission of an offence, Section 657.2(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows the prosecution to introduce evidence of another person's conviction or discharge of theft of the property, which can act as proof that the property was stolen. A defendant's counsel must thus be aware of the potential impact this provision could have on the case and develop strategic approaches to mitigate this impact. One strategy that a defendant's counsel may employ is to challenge the relevance of the evidence, arguing that it does not prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution may rely on evidence of the conviction or discharge of another person, without providing sufficient evidence linking the accused to the stolen property. In such cases, the defense can argue that the provision in Section 657.2(1) does not automatically establish a connection between the accused and the stolen property and, therefore, the evidence is immaterial. Another approach to dealing with Section 657.2(1) is to challenge the credibility and reliability of the prosecution's evidence. The defense may argue that the conviction or discharge of another person is irrelevant and cannot be admitted as evidence, as it does not prove that the property found in the possession of the accused was stolen. The prosecution will have to provide additional evidence or explanations to establish a link between the accused and the stolen property. Moreover, the defense may leverage witnesses, expert opinion, or other evidence to contest the credibility of the prosecution's evidence and establish reasonable doubt. This strategy may involve calling experts in forensics, accounting, or any other relevant field to counter the prosecution's assertions that the accused was in possession of the stolen property. Witnesses may likewise be called, and their testimony used to create doubt about the circumstances that led to the accused's possession of the property. In conclusion, when dealing with Section 657.2(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, the defendant's counsel must be aware of the potential impact of this provision on the case and develop strategic approaches to mitigate its impact. These may include challenging the relevance of the evidence, contesting the credibility and reliability of the prosecution's evidence, and leveraging other evidence to establish reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the defense must craft the most persuasive argument against the prosecution's claim that the accused was in possession of stolen property.