section 224

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

If a persons actions or lack of action leads to someones death, they are responsible for causing that death even if it could have been prevented by other means.

SECTION WORDING

224 Where a person, by an act or omission, does any thing that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that death from that cause might have been prevented by resorting to proper means.

EXPLANATION

Section 224 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that defines the offence of causing death. According to this section, if a person causes the death of another by an act or omission, they are guilty of causing the death, even if the death could have been prevented by using proper means. This provision is significant because it places a great deal of responsibility on individuals to take appropriate actions to prevent harm to others. It also highlights the importance of proper care and attention to the safety and well-being of others. For instance, if a person drives recklessly and causes an accident that leads to the death of another, they could be charged and found guilty of causing death under this provision. Similarly, if a person omits to provide necessary medical care to a person who later dies from an ailment that could have been treated, they could also be found guilty of causing death. The provision also underscores the idea of causation, which means that a person is only guilty under this section if their act or omission was a direct cause of the death. This means that if the death was caused by a series of events, and the person's act or omission was only a remote cause, they may not be found guilty under this provision. Overall, Section 224 of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a crucial role in defining and punishing acts that lead to the death of others, highlighting the importance of proper care and attention to safety, health, and well-being.

COMMENTARY

Section 224 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that highlights the importance of individual responsibility when it comes to causing the death of another person. The section states that a person can be held liable for causing the death of another person if they engage in an act or omission that results in the death, irrespective of whether the death could have been avoided through the application of proper means. This provision is based on the fundamental legal principle of causation, which states that for any harm or injury to be attributed to a person, that person must have caused or contributed to the harm in question. In the context of section 224, this means that a person can be held responsible for causing the death of another person if their conduct is the primary cause of death, regardless of whether other factors could have contributed to the death. One important aspect of section 224 is the emphasis on the importance of proper means in preventing death. According to the provision, a person cannot escape liability for causing the death of another person by arguing that the death could have been avoided through the use of proper means. This means that when a person engages in conduct that has the potential to cause harm, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm from occurring. Failure to take these steps can result in criminal liability. Furthermore, section 224 is a crucial provision for ensuring accountability in cases of homicide, particularly cases where the act or omission was intentional. The provision sends a strong message to individuals that they will be held responsible for their actions, irrespective of the outcome. This is important for maintaining public trust and confidence in the justice system, as it ensures that those who engage in criminal behavior are held accountable for their actions. However, one potential drawback of section 224 is that the provision could be interpreted to impose strict liability for causing death. This means that a person could be held criminally liable for causing death, even if they had no intention of doing so. While this approach may be justifiable in cases where the person engaged in a dangerous activity, such as reckless driving, it could also lead to wrongful convictions in cases where the person was not aware of the risk of harm. In conclusion, section 224 of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a critical role in ensuring accountability for causing death. The provision emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility, proper means, and the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm from occurring. While it is a valuable provision, care must be taken to ensure that strict liability is not imposed in cases where the person had no intention of causing harm.

STRATEGY

Section 224 of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes criminal responsibility for causing the death of a human being, even if death could have been prevented by taking appropriate measures. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and defendants must take into account. In this essay, I will discuss some of these considerations and propose some strategies that can be employed. One of the first considerations when dealing with section 224 is the requirement for causation. In order to establish criminal responsibility, it must be shown that the act or omission of the accused was the legal cause of the victim's death. This can be a complex issue, particularly in cases where there are multiple causes of death or where there is a delay between the act and the death. Therefore, lawyers must carefully examine the evidence to establish a clear causal link between the accused's actions and the victim's death. Another important consideration is the level of mens rea required for a conviction under section 224. The Crown must prove that the accused intended to cause the victim's death or was reckless as to whether death would result from their actions. This can be difficult to establish and requires a careful analysis of the accused's state of mind at the time of the offence. Both the Crown and the defence must be prepared to present evidence and arguments on this point. A third consideration is the potential defences that may be available to the accused. One of the most common defences in cases of homicide is self-defence, where the accused argues that they were acting in protection of themselves or others and that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Another defence is provocation, where the accused argues that they were provoked into committing the offence by the victim's conduct. Lawyers must be prepared to argue these defences, where applicable, and must be ready to respond to any counter-arguments put forward by the opposing side. In terms of strategies, there are several that can be employed when dealing with section 224 cases. One strategy is to challenge the Crown's evidence on causation, particularly where there are competing causes of death. This may involve retaining expert witnesses or presenting alternative theories of causation. Another strategy is to attack the Crown's case on mens rea, arguing that the accused did not have the required intent or recklessness. This may involve presenting evidence of the accused's mental state or arguing that the Crown's evidence is inconsistent or unreliable. A third strategy is to negotiate a plea bargain, where the accused agrees to plead guilty to a lesser offence in exchange for a reduced sentence. This may be appropriate in cases where the evidence of guilt is strong and a conviction is likely, but where the accused has mitigating factors that could be taken into account at sentencing. Negotiating a plea bargain requires careful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the case, as well as an understanding of the Crown's position. Overall, dealing with section 224 of the Criminal Code requires careful analysis of the facts and the law, as well as strategic thinking and effective advocacy. Lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and defendants must all be prepared to present strong and persuasive arguments, and must be open to considering a range of strategies to achieve the best possible outcome in each case.