section 106(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Section 106(2) outlines the penalties for committing an offence under subsection (1), either with a maximum imprisonment term of five years for an indictable offence or a summary conviction.

SECTION WORDING

106(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

EXPLANATION

Section 106(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the penalties for committing an offence under subsection (1), which criminalizes the obstruction of justice. This section outlines the two types of offences that a person can be charged with if they are found guilty of obstructing justice. According to subsection (1), obstructing justice entails several actions that can impede the course of justice, like destroying evidence, intimidating a witness, or engaging in conduct that obstructs a police officer in the execution of their duties. If a person is found guilty of any of these actions, they can be charged with an indictable offence, which carries a maximum prison term of five years. Alternatively, a person found guilty of obstructing justice can also be charged with a summary conviction offence. This type of offence is less serious than an indictable offence and usually carries a lesser sentence of a maximum of two years imprisonment or a fine. The penalties outlined in Section 106(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada serve to deter individuals from committing acts that obstruct justice. The Canadian justice system depends on the cooperation of individuals and their willingness to provide evidence and assist law enforcement in the pursuit of justice. Obstructing justice creates a significant risk to the integrity of the legal system and undermines the fundamental principles of fairness and impartiality. For this reason, individuals who engage in such conduct can face serious penalties, including imprisonment.

COMMENTARY

Section 106(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that regulates the act of committing an offence while wearing a disguise with the intent to commit a crime. The provision covers a wide range of offences, from property crimes such as theft and burglary, to violent crimes such as assault and robbery. The purpose of this provision is to discourage the use of disguises in the commission of crimes, as well as to provide a deterrent effect on those who may be contemplating committing such crimes. In order to trigger the application of this provision, several conditions must be met. First and foremost, the offender must have committed an offence while wearing a disguise. Secondly, the disguise must have been worn with the intent to commit the offence or to facilitate its commission. The scope of what constitutes a disguise is broad, and can range from something as simple as a scarf or a hat, to more elaborate costumes or masks. Subsection (2) of section 106 outlines the penalties that an offender may face if convicted of an offence under subsection (1). Depending on the nature and severity of the offence, an offender may be charged with an indictable offence, which is a more serious crime that can result in a prison sentence of up to five years. Alternatively, an offender may be charged with a summary conviction offence, which is a less severe crime that can result in a fine, community service, or a short period of imprisonment. Overall, the intention of this provision is to protect public safety and prevent crime by discouraging the use of disguises when committing an offence. It is important to note, however, that this provision must be applied in a way that respects the rights of the accused and ensures that they are not unfairly punished for minor or unintentional offences. As with any criminal law provision, it is important to interpret and apply section 106(2) in a manner that is consistent with the principles of justice and due process. In conclusion, section 106(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that helps to deter the use of disguises in the commission of crimes. Although the penalties for violating this provision can be serious, it is important to apply them in a manner that is fair and proportionate to the offence committed. It is also important to recognize that this provision is just one part of a larger criminal justice system, and that effective crime prevention and deterrence require a multifaceted approach that includes social and economic interventions, as well as strong law enforcement and criminal justice policies.

STRATEGY

Section 106(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the penalties for an individual who commits an offence under subsection (1), which pertains to a breach of the peace. This section is critical to consider when strategizing legal proceedings, as several factors may affect the severity of the offence and the appropriate course of action. One strategy to consider when dealing with section 106(2) is to determine the circumstances surrounding the offence. The severity of the breach of the peace may vary greatly, from a minor disturbance to a significant altercation that causes harm or damage. Understanding the details of the situation, such as the nature and extent of the disturbance, the individuals involved, and the intent of the offender, can help determine the appropriate course of action. Another strategy is to consider the available evidence. Prosecutors must provide sufficient evidence to prove that an individual has committed a breach of the peace. This process can be complex, as perceptions of what constitutes a breach of the peace can vary widely. In some cases, physical evidence, such as broken property or physical injury, may be helpful in proving the offence, while in other cases, witness testimony may be relied upon to prove the accused's behaviour. It is essential to consider the accused's prior criminal history when dealing with a breach of the peace charge. If the individual has a history of committing similar offences, the severity of the punishment may increase. Similarly, an individual who has no prior record may receive a more lenient penalty. Another strategy to consider is the method of prosecution. As section 106(2) allows both indictable offences or those punishable by summary conviction, it is essential to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. The choice between a summary conviction and an indictable offence can be significant. Summary convictions are typically resolved more quickly and cost-effectively, while indictable offences are more severe in nature, carrying more significant penalties, but can be more challenging to prosecute. In addition to these strategies, it is critical to work with an experienced legal team that can assist in navigating the complex legal system. A skilled legal team may be able to argue for reduced penalties or explore alternative penalties to prison time, such as community service or probation. In conclusion, section 106(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves as an important guideline for the penalties associated with a breach of the peace. Legal practitioners must consider several factors when dealing with these types of charges, including the circumstances surrounding the event, the available evidence, the accused's criminal history, and the method of prosecution. By employing strategic considerations and a skilled legal team, individuals accused of breaching the peace can work towards a favourable outcome that meets their unique needs and circumstances.