Criminal Code of Canada - section 195(2) - Information respecting authorizations

section 195(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Section 195(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the details that must be included in a report regarding authorizations and interceptions in relation to criminal investigations.

SECTION WORDING

195(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) shall, in relation to authorizations and interceptions made thereunder, set out (a) the number of applications made for authorizations; (b) the number of applications made for renewal of authorizations; (c) the number of applications referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) that were granted, the number of those applications that were refused and the number of applications referred to in paragraph (a) that were granted subject to terms and conditions; (d) the number of persons identified in an authorization against whom proceedings were commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada in respect of (i) an offence specified in the authorization, (ii) an offence other than an offence specified in the authorization but in respect of which an authorization may be given, and (iii) an offence in respect of which an authorization may not be given; (e) the number of persons not identified in an authorization against whom proceedings were commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada in respect of (i) an offence specified in such an authorization, (ii) an offence other than an offence specified in such an authorization but in respect of which an authorization may be given, and (iii) an offence other than an offence specified in such an authorization and for which no such authorization may be given, and whose commission or alleged commission of the offence became known to a peace officer as a result of an interception of a private communication under an authorization; (f) the average period for which authorizations were given and for which renewals thereof were granted; (g) the number of authorizations that, by virtue of one or more renewals thereof, were valid for more than sixty days, for more than one hundred and twenty days, for more than one hundred and eighty days and for more than two hundred and forty days; (h) the number of notifications given pursuant to section 196; (i) the offences in respect of which authorizations were given, specifying the number of authorizations given in respect of each of those offences; (j) a description of all classes of places specified in authorizations and the number of authorizations in which each of those classes of places was specified; (k) a general description of the methods of interception involved in each interception under an authorization; (l) the number of persons arrested whose identity became known to a peace officer as a result of an interception under an authorization; (m) the number of criminal proceedings commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada in which private communications obtained by interception under an authorization were adduced in evidence and the number of those proceedings that resulted in a conviction; and (n) the number of criminal investigations in which information obtained as a result of the interception of a private communication under an authorization was used although the private communication was not adduced in evidence in criminal proceedings commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada as a result of the investigations.

EXPLANATION

Section 195(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the requirements for reporting and recording interception of private communications through court-authorized warrants. This section is intended to promote transparency and accountability by mandating the collection and documentation of pertinent information related to the authorization process and the use of interception warrants. The section requires that reports be submitted to the Attorney General of Canada and must include details such as the number of warrant applications made, how many were granted or refused, the types of offences for which authorization was given, and the duration for which the authorizations were valid. It also mandates recording information on the number of persons identified in the warrants against whom legal proceedings were commenced, the number of persons not identified in the warrants against whom proceedings were commenced, and the number of persons arrested as a result of information discovered through the warrants. Furthermore, the section requires a description of the methods of interception used for each warrant, information on the classes of places specified in each warrant, and whether any private communications obtained were used as evidence in criminal proceedings or investigations. Overall, Section 195(2) serves to ensure appropriate use of court-authorized interception warrants and provides a mechanism for oversight and accountability.

COMMENTARY

Section 195(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada lays out the requirements for a report to be submitted outlining the authorizations and interceptions made in relation to investigations conducted under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. The report provides an important accountability mechanism to ensure that the powers granted by the state to intercept private communications are not misused or abused. The report includes a comprehensive list of information that must be provided, including the number of applications made for authorizations, the number of renewals, and the outcome of those applications. This information is essential in determining the effectiveness of the investigative techniques used and any potential areas for improvement. The report also requires information regarding the length of authorizations and renewals, including the number of authorizations that were valid for more than 60, 120, 180 and 240 days. This information is particularly important in determining if investigations are being conducted in a timely manner and not extended arbitrarily. The report further requires information regarding the classes of places specified in authorizations, as well as a general description of the methods of interception involved in each interception under an authorization. This information provides insight into the methods used by law enforcement and can be used to determine if those methods are appropriate or if they require further regulation. Importantly, the report requires information regarding persons identified in an authorization against whom proceedings were commenced, as well as persons not identified in an authorization against whom proceedings were commenced as a result of an interception of a private communication under an authorization. This information is essential in determining if the interception of private communications is resulting in successful prosecutions, as well as in identifying any potential privacy violations or innocent persons caught up in investigations. The report also requires information about the number of criminal proceedings commenced in which private communications obtained by interception under an authorization were adduced in evidence and the number of those proceedings that resulted in a conviction. This information is essential in determining the efficacy of the investigative technique, as well as in ensuring that convictions are based on reliable and admissible evidence. Finally, the report requires information about the number of criminal investigations in which information obtained as a result of the interception of a private communication under an authorization was used although the private communication was not adduced in evidence in criminal proceedings. This information is essential in determining if the interception of private communications is resulting in the successful resolution of investigations, as well as potential violations of privacy and civil liberties. Overall, Section 195(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a comprehensive framework for accountability for law enforcement agencies engaged in the interception of private communications. The requirements set out in the section ensure that investigations are conducted appropriately, effectively, and with a respect for privacy and civil liberties, all essential components of a functioning democratic society.

STRATEGY

When dealing with section 195(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that should be taken into account. First and foremost, it is important to ensure compliance with the section and to provide accurate and comprehensive reports when required. Failure to comply with this section could result in legal repercussions and damage to the reputation of the organization or individual involved. One strategy that could be employed is to establish clear policies and procedures for the management and reporting of authorizations and interceptions. This could include developing standard templates for reporting, establishing timelines for the preparation and submission of reports, and assigning specific roles and responsibilities to individuals within the organization. Another strategy is to invest in technology to assist with the management and reporting of authorizations and interceptions. This could include implementing electronic tracking systems to monitor the status of authorizations and interceptions, as well as software to assist with the preparation of reports. It is also important to consider the potential impact on privacy when dealing with authorizations and interceptions. Organizations should have clear policies in place that outline the circumstances under which interceptions may be authorized and the steps that should be taken to protect the privacy of individuals whose communications are intercepted. In addition, organizations may want to consider engaging with stakeholders and the public to raise awareness about the use of authorizations and interceptions and the importance of transparency in reporting. This could help to build trust and confidence in the use of these techniques and reduce the potential for negative public perception. Ultimately, the most effective strategy for dealing with section 195(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada will depend on the specific circumstances and needs of the organization. However, by taking a proactive and transparent approach to the management and reporting of authorizations and interceptions, organizations can minimize the risk of legal repercussions and maintain the trust of stakeholders and the public.