INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Failing to stop and offer assistance after causing harm is evidence of an intent to avoid legal responsibility.
SECTION WORDING
252(2) In proceedings under subsection (1), evidence that an accused failed to stop his vehicle, vessel or, where possible, his aircraft, as the case may be, offer assistance where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance and give his name and address is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of an intent to escape civil or criminal liability.
EXPLANATION
Section 252(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the legal requirement of motorists and operators of other modes of transportation to stop their vehicle, vessel, or aircraft if they are involved in an accident and offer reasonable assistance to injured persons. Failure to do so may result in an offense with legal consequences. This section provides guidelines on how an accused who has failed to stop, offer assistance, and give their personal information can be charged in court. It states that if an accused fails to do the above, it raises the presumption that they had an intention to escape civil or criminal liability which in turn, means they can be tried under criminal law. In essence, section 252(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is designed to discourage and penalize drivers who want to evade their legal obligations after being involved in an accident, especially those who want to avoid being charged with criminal offenses. The section aims to ensure that individuals take responsibility for their actions on the road and encourages them to act with empathy and kindness toward fellow members of the public who are victims of road accidents. In summary, section 252(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a clear reminder to all transportation operators to stop if they are involved in an accident, offer assistance, and comply with the other legal obligations. Failure to do so can have dire consequences, and the accused will be presumed to have an intent to escape civil and criminal liability.
COMMENTARY
Section 252(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the offence of failing to stop at the scene of an accident. The provision sets out the evidentiary rule that failure to stop one's vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, where possible, to offer assistance and provide one's name and address is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of an intent to escape civil or criminal liability. The provision sends a strong message to drivers, operators, and pilots that they have an obligation to stop and render assistance in case of an accident involving property damage, injury, or death. This obligation is based on the principles of duty of care, duty to provide information, duty to render assistance, and duty to report accidents to the authorities. Failure to comply with these duties may result in criminal charges, fines, imprisonment, driver's license suspension, and civil liability for damages. The evidentiary rule under section 252(2) is meant to simplify and streamline the proof of the mental element (mens rea) of the offence. In other words, it allows the prosecution to argue that the accused had the requisite intent to escape civil or criminal liability, based solely on the fact that they failed to stop and provide assistance and information after the accident. The logic behind this is that a reasonable, law-abiding, and responsible person would always stop and offer help and information in such circumstances, and that failure to do so must be wilful and deliberate. However, it should be noted that the evidentiary rule operates only in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This means that the defence can still rebut the presumption of intent by presenting evidence that the accused had a reasonable excuse for not stopping or providing assistance and information. For example, the accused may argue that they did not realize that an accident had occurred, or that they were unable to stop due to a medical emergency, a mechanical failure, or a threat of harm. Moreover, the rule applies only to the mental element of the offence of failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and not to the physical element (actus reus) or the other elements of the offence. Thus, the prosecution must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to stop, failed to offer assistance or information, and that the accused knew or ought to have known that the accident caused property damage, injury, or death. In practice, the evidentiary rule under section 252(2) has been used successfully by the Crown to secure convictions in cases where the accused have fled the scene of accidents. Notably, the rule has been applied in cases involving hit-and-run incidents, impaired driving incidents, and other types of accidents where the accused failed to stop and render aid to the victims. The rule has been upheld by the courts as constitutional and consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. In conclusion, section 252(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a significant provision that reinforces the duty of drivers, operators, and pilots to stop and assist in case of accidents. The evidentiary rule under the provision is a useful tool for prosecutors to establish the mental element of the offence, but it is subject to rebuttal by the defence. The provision serves as a reminder that safety on the roads, waterways, and airspaces depends not only on the skills and judgment of drivers or pilots, but also on their compassion, responsibility, and respect for the law.
STRATEGY
Section 252(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that makes a failure to stop and offer assistance after being involved in an accident, proof of intent to escape criminal or civil liability. This provision is designed to ensure that individuals who cause accidents are held accountable for their actions and provide assistance to those who may be injured or in need of help. However, this provision can also be difficult to navigate, and there are several strategic considerations that one should make when handling a case involving section 252(2). One of the most significant strategic considerations when dealing with section 252(2) is understanding the burden of proof. The provision states that evidence of a failure to stop and offer assistance is "proof" of intent to escape liability unless there is evidence to the contrary. This means that the burden of proof is on the defendant to provide evidence that they did not intend to escape liability. This can be challenging, as it requires the defendant to prove a negative, rather than the Crown proving a positive. As a result, defendants need to be strategic in presenting their case and providing evidence that can refute the Crown's argument of intent to escape liability. Another strategic consideration when dealing with section 252(2) is understanding the potential consequences of a conviction. If convicted, an individual can face severe penalties, including fines, imprisonment, and a criminal record. A criminal record can have significant consequences, including difficulty finding employment, housing, or support from community services. As a result, defendants should carefully consider their options when dealing with this provision of the Criminal Code. They may choose to plead guilty and seek a lighter sentence or fight the charges in court. However, in either case, it is essential to have a skilled criminal lawyer who can provide effective legal counsel and representation. Defendants facing charges under section 252(2) may also consider employing various strategies to challenge the Crown's case. For example, they may argue that they did not realize they had been involved in an accident and, therefore, did not stop. Alternatively, they may argue that they did not offer assistance because they did not see anyone who needed help or were concerned about their safety. These arguments may be effective, but it is crucial to have the evidence to support them. In addition, defendants may consider negotiating a plea bargain with the Crown. Depending on the circumstances of the case and the defendant's record, the Crown may be willing to reduce the charges or offer a lighter sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. These negotiations can be complex, and it is essential to have a skilled criminal lawyer who can navigate them effectively. Finally, defendants may consider using the provision of the Criminal Code to their advantage. Although section 252(2) can be challenging to navigate, it can also provide defendants with a clear path to refute the Crown's argument of intent to escape liability. If a defendant can provide sufficient evidence to show that they did not intend to escape liability, they may be able to avoid a conviction under this provision. Overall, section 252(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that ensures accountability and assistance in the event of an accident. However, it can be challenging to navigate and can result in severe consequences for defendants. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully consider all strategic options and work closely with a skilled criminal lawyer to effectively handle cases involving this provision.