INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
134(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a statement referred to in that subsection that is made in the course of a criminal investigation.
Section 134(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that exemption clause for certain statements made during a criminal investigation. The subsection states that section 134(1) does not apply to a statement made during a criminal investigation. Section 134(1) prohibits the publication of any information that could identify the victim or witness in a sexual offence case. This subsection provides an exception to that rule based on the context. The purpose of this provision is to allow police officers and investigators to gather evidence during the investigation of a crime. If Section 134(1) was to apply during a criminal investigation, then the police officers and investigators would be unable to report the identity of a victim or witness in a sexual offence case, and this may limit the investigation and negatively impact the prosecution of the case. However, it is important to note that section 134(2) does not mean that all statements made during a criminal investigation are exempt from Section 134(1). Only statements that are made during the investigation of a crime, and that relate to that crime, are exempt. The Crown prosecutor and the judge must still consider whether the statement is required for the fair and proper administration of justice, and whether the principles of fundamental justice outweigh any potential harm that may arise from the publication of the statement. In summary, Section 134(2) provides an exception to Section 134(1) for statements made during a criminal investigation, in order to allow for the proper administration of justice and the prosecution of crimes. However, this exception applies only to statements that are closely related to the crime under investigation, and only if it is necessary to do so in order to ensure a fair trial.
Section 134(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada has been the subject of much debate and controversy since its inception. This section provides an exemption from the offence of obstructing justice for statements made during a criminal investigation. While this may seem like a reasonable exception in theory, it has been used in practise by police and prosecutors to justify a wide range of activities that many argue are unethical and unconstitutional. At the heart of the issue is the idea that statements made during a criminal investigation are somehow exempt from the normal standards of truthfulness and legality that apply in other contexts. This means that police and prosecutors are able to engage in a range of activities that are designed to extract statements from suspects, including the use of deceptive practices, coercion, and even outright lies. Under section 134(2), these activities are considered legal and legitimate, even if they would be considered illegal in other contexts. There are a number of problems with this approach to criminal investigations. First, it creates a double standard that is fundamentally unfair. If individuals are held to a higher standard of truthfulness and legality in other contexts, why should they be exempt from those standards when they are being questioned by the police? This creates a situation where innocent people can be forced to make false statements or incriminate themselves simply because they are afraid or confused. Secondly, section 134(2) creates a situation where the police and prosecutors are incentivized to engage in unethical and unconstitutional practices. This is because they know that they can rely on this exemption to justify their actions, even if those actions would be considered illegal in other contexts. This creates a culture of impunity in which law enforcement officials are able to abuse their power without fear of repercussion. Finally, section 134(2) undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole. If people do not trust the police and the judicial system to act fairly and ethically, they are less likely to cooperate with investigations and less likely to respect the law. This can lead to a breakdown in social order and a rise in criminal activity. In conclusion, while section 134(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada may seem like a reasonable exception in theory, in practice it has created a range of problems for the criminal justice system. It creates a double standard, incentivizes police and prosecutors to engage in unethical behaviour, and undermines the integrity of the entire system. For these reasons, many argue that section 134(2) needs to be reformed or removed from the code altogether.
Section 134(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an exemption to the general rule that it is an offense to publish information that could identify a victim or witness in a criminal case. Specifically, this subsection allows for the publication of such information if it is made in the course of a criminal investigation. This provision is intended to allow for the free flow of information during an ongoing investigation, without jeopardizing the safety or privacy of victims or witnesses. However, the application of this section requires careful consideration and strategic planning. One of the primary strategic considerations when dealing with section 134(2) is the potential impact on the investigation and the parties involved. Publishing information that identifies a victim or witness could compromise the safety of those individuals and hinder the investigation as a whole. As such, it is critical to balance the need for information and public disclosure against the potential risks and implications of doing so. To minimize the potential risks and maximize the benefits of section 134(2), several strategies could be employed. For example, it may be helpful to work closely with law enforcement and other relevant parties to ensure that any disclosures are made in a responsible and coordinated manner. This could involve establishing clear guidelines for what information can and cannot be disclosed, as well as developing protocols for how to handle any sensitive data or communications. Another effective strategy when dealing with section 134(2) is to leverage technology and other resources to enhance the security and privacy of information being published. This could involve using encrypted communication channels, secure cloud storage, and other tools to ensure that any sensitive data is protected from unauthorized access and misuse. Furthermore, it may be useful to engage stakeholders and the public in a transparent and informative dialogue about the investigation and the reasons for any disclosures that are made. This could help to build trust and credibility, while also minimizing any negative impacts of public disclosure. Overall, section 134(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that can facilitate the free flow of information during a criminal investigation. However, its application requires careful consideration and strategic planning, including working closely with relevant parties, leveraging technology to enhance security, and engaging stakeholders and the public in a transparent and informative manner. By taking these strategies into account, law enforcement, legal professionals, and others can maximize the benefits of section 134(2) while minimizing the potential risks and implications.