Criminal Code of Canada - section 215(3) - Punishment

section 215(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The section outlines the punishment for committing an offence under section 215(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

SECTION WORDING

215(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2) (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 and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

EXPLANATION

Section 215(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the offence of "unlawful confinement." According to subsection 2 of this same section, a person is guilty of this offence if they unlawfully confine, imprison, or forcibly seize another person without their consent. The confinement must also be done with the intention of doing one of the following: 1. Holding the person for ransom or to use them as a hostage; 2. Committing an indictable offence; or 3. Causing the person to be confined against their will. If a person commits an offence under subsection 2, then they may be charged and found guilty under subsection 3. The punishment for this offence differs depending on whether the offender is charged with an indictable offence (a more serious offence) or an offence that can be punishable on summary conviction (a less serious offence). If the offender is charged with an indictable offence under subsection 2, then they may be sentenced to a prison term of up to five years. However, if they are charged with a less serious offence, then they may be sentenced to a prison term of up to eighteen months. Overall, Section 215(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada aims to protect individuals from being unlawfully confined, imprisoned, or seized by another person. It serves as an important reminder that such actions are unacceptable and may result in serious consequences for the offender.

COMMENTARY

Section 215(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the act of breaking and entering into a dwelling house, which is considered to be a serious offence. A dwelling house, as defined by the Canadian criminal law, is a place of living that is occupied, whether temporarily or permanently, by one or more individuals. It is an essential space that gives human beings a sense of security, privacy, and personal space. In subsection (2) of Section 215, the act of breaking and entering defined includes the breaking in or trespassing a dwelling house with the intention of committing a crime, irrespective of whether the crime is committed or not. The offence is considered to be so severe that it carries a punishment of up to five years of imprisonment for an indictable offence or 18 months' imprisonment for an offence punishable on summary conviction. Breaking and entering can lead to several consequences for the victim, including physical harm, emotional trauma, and financial loss. The offender can steal valuable items and damage the property, which can cost the owner a considerable amount of money. Moreover, the victim can suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and may have difficulty finding a peaceful place to reside after the incident. The punishment for breaking and entering is in line with the severity of the crime. It aims to deter individuals from engaging in such heinous acts and prevent potential harm to innocent people. Moreover, it assures the victims that justice will be served and the offender will be held accountable for their actions. The punishment for breaking and entering on summary conviction is relatively less compared to the indictable offence, which may prompt some offenders to think that they can commit the crime with lesser consequences. However, the punishment is still significant enough to deter individuals from committing the crime and more importantly, hold offenders accountable for their actions. It is important to note that this section of the Criminal Code does not apply to situations where the individual was invited to enter the dwelling house or where the individual entered without intending to commit a crime. The law clearly distinguishes between criminal and non-criminal activity and ensures that individuals are not punished erroneously. In conclusion, Section 215(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada emphasizes the importance of the dwelling house as a place of privacy, safety, and peace. Breaking and entering into a dwelling house is a serious crime that carries severe consequences and aims to deter offenders from engaging in future such activities. Justice needs to be served, and this section of the criminal law ensures that offenders are held accountable for their actions and punished accordingly.

STRATEGY

Section 215(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with the offence of robbery. It states the punishment for anyone who commits this criminal act under subsection (2) of the same section. As with any criminal charge, the decision to lay charges under this provision requires careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. This often involves weighing the evidence, assessing potential defences, and evaluating the impact of various legal strategies. In this article, we will explore some of the strategic considerations that are relevant when dealing with section 215(3) of the Criminal Code, as well as some possible strategies that can be employed in such cases. One of the most critical strategic considerations when dealing with section 215(3) of the Criminal Code is to understand the severity of the charge and the potential consequences for the accused. Given that this is an indictable offence, a conviction can lead to a prison term of up to five years. This can have life-altering consequences for the accused, including the loss of their liberty and the stigma associated with a criminal record. Furthermore, such a conviction can also have collateral consequences, such as difficulty finding employment or housing, and social ostracism. Therefore, it is essential to take a strategic approach that aims to minimize the impact of these consequences. One strategy that can be employed is to challenge the charge on the basis of insufficient evidence. In cases where the prosecution's evidence is weak or unreliable, the defence can argue that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. This may involve questioning the credibility of witnesses, challenging the admissibility of evidence, or highlighting inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. By raising doubt about the prosecution's case, the defence can increase the likelihood of an acquittal. Another strategy that can be effective in section 215(3) cases is to negotiate a plea bargain with the Crown. Plea bargaining involves negotiating with the prosecution to reach a mutually beneficial agreement that avoids the need for a trial. A plea bargain may involve the accused pleading guilty to a less serious offence, such as theft or break-and-enter, in exchange for a reduced sentence or a more lenient form of punishment. This strategy can be particularly useful when the evidence against the accused is strong, and a conviction is likely. A third strategy that can be employed in section 215(3) cases is to challenge the constitutionality of the provision itself. This may involve arguing that the section infringes on a constitutionally protected right, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to liberty, or the presumption of innocence. A successful constitutional challenge can result in the charges being dismissed or the provision being declared unconstitutional. Overall, section 215(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a serious criminal offence that requires a carefully considered legal strategy. Some of the strategic considerations that are relevant when dealing with this provision include understanding the potential consequences of a conviction, evaluating the strength of the evidence, and exploring possible legal defences. Some of the strategies that can be employed in such cases include challenging the charge on the basis of insufficient evidence, negotiating a plea bargain, or challenging the constitutionality of the provision itself. Ultimately, the success of any legal strategy will depend on the unique facts and circumstances of each case.