section 183

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Section 183 defines authorization for intercepting private communication in the Criminal Code of Canada.

SECTION WORDING

183 In this Part, "authorization" means an authorization to intercept a private communication given under section 186 or subsection 184.2(3), 184.3(6) or 188(2);

EXPLANATION

Section 183 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that defines the meaning of authorization" in Part VI of the Code. Part VI deals with the interception of private communications, which refers to the act of overhearing or accessing someone's private conversation or communication without their consent. The term "authorization" in this context refers to the permission granted to authorized persons or agencies to intercept private communications. This authorization can only be granted by certain individuals or entities under specific circumstances specified in section 186 or subsections 184.2(3), 184.3(6) or 188(2) of the Criminal Code. These authorizations are necessary for law enforcement agencies to intercept private communications during their investigations into criminal activities. However, these intercepts are not allowed unless there is evidence of suspected criminal activities that pose a threat to national security, public safety, or the administration of justice. Under section 186, a judge can grant authorization to intercept private communication if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the interception is necessary for investigating or preventing a criminal offense. Similarly, under subsections 184.2(3), 184.3(6), or 188(2), authorized agencies may obtain authorizations to intercept communications in specific circumstances, such as investigating organized crime, terrorism, or espionage. The Criminal Code of Canada places strict conditions and limitations on the interception of private communications, and violators of these provisions may face serious consequences. Overall, section 183 is an important provision that helps regulate the interception of private communications in Canada, ensuring that people's right to privacy is protected while also enabling law enforcement agencies to do their job effectively in investigating and preventing crimes.

COMMENTARY

Section 183 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a definition of authorization" in the context of Part VI of the Code, which deals with interception of communications. The section defines an authorization as an authorization given under specific sections of the Code, including sections 186, 184.2(3), 184.3(6), or 188(2). This means that any interception of private communications by law enforcement agencies needs to be authorized by a specific provision of the Code. Interception of communication is a significant power that law enforcement agencies have been given for gathering information in criminal investigations. However, it is also a power that is open to abuse, and therefore, the provisions of the Code governing interception must be strictly followed. Section 183 ensures that agencies can only use intercepted communications in evidence if they obtained the authorization as per the procedures laid down in the Code. The requirement of an authorization is one of the essential safeguards against arbitrary interference with individual privacy rights, which are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section ensures that individuals' privacy rights are not eroded by the unlawful interception of their communications, and provide appropriate checks and balances to ensure that any interference is proportionate, necessary, and lawful. The Code imposes strict standards that agencies must follow before interceptions can begin. For example, before an interception can be authorized, an agency must demonstrate reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the interception will provide relevant evidence in the investigation of serious criminal offenses. The process of obtaining an authorization requires an agency to provide details of the proposed interception, including communications that will be intercepted, the nature of the offense, and a plan for destruction of non-relevant information. Furthermore, section 183 specifies only certain provisions that authorize interception of communications. This limitation ensures that the authorities do not have unchecked power to violate individual privacy rights, and that specific procedures must be followed to intercept communications. This kind of specificity is crucial in ensuring that agencies cannot act arbitrarily and abuse their power. In conclusion, section 183 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a necessary definition of authorization" in the context of Part VI of the Code, which deals with interception of communications. It ensures that only specific provisions govern interceptions, and that any interception must follow the laid-down procedures before it can take place. Section 183 is a crucial safeguard against any arbitrary interference with individuals' privacy rights. It is essential that the provisions outlined in this section continue to be maintained to protect privacy rights while enabling law enforcement agencies to perform their duties appropriately and effectively in investigating serious crimes.

STRATEGY

Section 183 of the Criminal Code of Canada relates to the interception of private communication and the authorization required to do so. When dealing with this section, there are several strategic considerations that need to be taken into account. The first consideration is to understand the circumstances under which interception of private communication is allowed. According to the Criminal Code of Canada, interception is only allowed in situations where there is a warrant or a legal authorization in place, or if the interception is being done by a law enforcement officer in the course of an ongoing investigation in certain prescribed circumstances. The strategic consideration here is to ensure that the interception is done within the legal framework, and that all the necessary authorizations or warrants are obtained. Another strategic consideration is to ensure that the interception is being done for a lawful purpose. Interception of private communication can only be justified if it is done for a lawful purpose, such as to obtain evidence of a crime or to prevent an imminent threat to public safety. The strategy here is to ensure that the lawful purpose is clearly defined, and that the interception is done within the scope of that purpose. A third strategic consideration is to ensure that the interception is done in a way that minimizes intrusion on privacy rights. Interception of private communication can be a significant intrusion on an individual's privacy rights, and there is a need to ensure that the interception is done in a way that minimizes that intrusion. The strategy here is to ensure that the interception is done in the least intrusive way possible, and that the privacy of the individuals involved is respected to the greatest extent possible. There are several strategies that can be employed to ensure that interception of private communication is done in a way that is legal, lawful, and minimizes intrusion on privacy rights. Some of these strategies include: 1. Obtaining legal advice: Legal advice can help to ensure that all the necessary legal authorizations and warrants are obtained, and that the interception is being done within the legal framework. 2. Clearly defining the lawful purpose: Clearly defining the lawful purpose of the interception can help to ensure that the interception is being done for a justified reason. 3. Ensuring that the interception is proportionate: Ensuring that the interception is proportionate to the lawful purpose can help to ensure that the intrusion on privacy rights is minimized. 4. Using the least intrusive means: Using the least intrusive means possible to achieve the lawful purpose can help to minimize the intrusion on privacy rights. 5. Minimizing the disclosure of intercepted communications: Minimizing the disclosure of intercepted communications can help to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. In conclusion, interception of private communication can be a significant intrusion on privacy rights, and there is a need to ensure that interception is done within the legal framework, for a lawful purpose, and in a way that minimizes intrusion on privacy rights. Strategies such as obtaining legal advice, clearly defining the lawful purpose, ensuring proportionality, using the least intrusive means, and minimizing disclosure can help to achieve these goals.