Criminal Code of Canada - section 111(6) - Reasons

section 111(6)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Provincial court judge must provide reasons for not making or prohibiting an order regarding possession.

SECTION WORDING

111(6) Where a provincial court judge does not make an order under subsection (1), or where a provincial court judge does make such an order but does not prohibit the possession of everything referred to in that subsection, the provincial court judge shall include in the record a statement of the court’s reasons.

EXPLANATION

Section 111(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada specifies the requirement for provincial court judges to provide an explanation for their decision when they do not make an order under subsection (1) or when they make such an order but do not prohibit the possession of items referred to in that section. Subsection (1) pertains to the authority that allows a judge to make an order prohibiting the possession of firearms, ammunition, and other weapons by individuals charged with certain offences. The statement of reasons required by Section 111(6) is an important component of the court record, providing a clear explanation of the judge's decision-making process and the rationale behind it. This not only creates transparency and accountability in the judicial system, but also facilitates effective communication between the judges and those affected by the decision, such as the accused, the prosecutor, and the public. Moreover, the statement of reasons can serve as a crucial tool for the appeals process, allowing higher courts to examine the decision and the reasoning behind it. This, in turn, helps to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of the law across different cases and jurisdictions. Overall, Section 111(6) reinforces the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in the criminal justice system, promoting confidence in the courts and upholding the rule of law.

COMMENTARY

Section 111(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada ensures that, in cases where a provincial court judge either declines to make an order under subsection (1) of Section 111 or makes such an order that does not prohibit the possession of the items referenced in that subsection, the judge must give a statement of the court's reasons. The provision is essential for transparency and accountability in the legal system and ensures that the court's reasoning is explained adequately for the benefit of the parties involved, the public, and any appellate court that may review the case. The principle of accountability is a fundamental pillar of a democratic system. In the legal context, accountability refers to the judicial system's responsibility to justify its decisions logically and provide reasonable explanations for the outcome of a case. The requirement for the inclusion of a written statement of reasons in Section 111(6) ensures that accountability is upheld in situations where a judge chooses not to issue an order under Section 111(1) or does so but does not prohibit the possession of the items referred to in that subsection. The provision's importance is highlighted by the severe implications of an order under Section 111(1). This subsection permits a judge to issue an order prohibiting the possession of firearms, ammunition, explosives, or any prescribed weapon of the accused in cases where the court is satisfied that such an order is necessary to ensure the safety of the public or of any person. This is a significant limitation of an individual's rights and liberties, and the court's reasoning for issuing or not issuing such orders must be adequately articulated. By requiring a judge to explain their decision, Section 111(6) promotes consistency and fairness in the legal system. As judges provide more detailed reasoning, it aids others in understanding how past judgments relate to current cases, making the judicial process more predictable and transparent. This also allows litigants to understand why a particular outcome was reached, which can help them evaluate whether to appeal a verdict. Furthermore, the requirement for judges to include a written statement of reasons can prove critical in an appeal or judicial review. When a party disagrees with the court's ruling, the reasons furnished in the judgment are instrumental in mounting a legal challenge to the verdict. Without such an explanation, an appellate court would be required to speculate about the trial court's motives, thus severely compromising the quality of justice. In conclusion, Section 111(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision that promotes accountability, fairness, and consistency in the legal system. By requiring provincial court judges to provide a statement of the court's reasons when they decline to make an order under Section 111(1) or do so but do not prohibit the possession of the items referenced in that subsection, this provision ensures that the legal system is transparent and accountable to the public. In turn, this promotes confidence in the judicial system and guarantees that justice is served fairly to all Canadians.

STRATEGY

Section 111(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that governs the issuance of a prohibition order by a provincial court judge. The section requires that when a judge decides not to make an order under subsection (1) of the section or makes an order but does not prohibit the possession of everything referred to in that subsection, the judge must provide reasons for that decision. This provision creates a strategic consideration for lawyers who are representing clients in cases where a prohibition order may be issued. One strategic consideration is to anticipate the judge's decision based on their previous rulings in similar cases. For example, if a judge has a reputation for being tough on drugs, it may be expected that they will issue a prohibition order in the case. In this case, the lawyer can prepare arguments and evidence to convince the judge otherwise. If the judge has a reputation for being lenient, the lawyer can focus on crafting an argument that will appeal to the judge's sense of compassion and mercy. Another strategic consideration is to identify the specific items that are at risk of being prohibited and present evidence to support the client's continued possession of those items. For example, if the client is a farmer who uses certain chemicals for their crops, the lawyer can present evidence of the value of those chemicals and the harm that would be caused to the farm if they were prohibited. Similarly, if the client is a collector of antique firearms, the lawyer can present evidence of the historical and cultural value of those firearms. A third strategic consideration is to anticipate the judge's reasoning for issuing or not issuing a prohibition order and address those reasons in advance. For example, if the judge is likely to issue a prohibition order due to concerns about public safety, the lawyer can present evidence that demonstrates that the client is not a threat to public safety. Alternatively, if the judge is likely to deny the prohibition order due to concerns about the impact on the client's livelihood, the lawyer can present evidence that demonstrates that the prohibition would be devastating to the client's ability to earn a living. In conclusion, section 111(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada creates a strategic consideration for lawyers when dealing with cases where a prohibition order may be issued. Lawyers can employ strategies such as anticipating the judge's decision, identifying specific items at risk of being prohibited, and addressing the judge's reasoning in advance to improve their chances of success.