INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
259(2.1) The court may, when it makes an order under this section prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be, order that the time served under that order be served consecutively to the time served under any other order made under this section that prohibits the operation of the same means of transport and that is in force.
Section 259(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows a court to order that a prohibition on operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or railway equipment be served consecutively to any other prohibition on the same means of transport. This provision applies when the court is making an order under section 259, which deals with impaired driving offences and other crimes related to the operation of vehicles and transport equipment. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that individuals who have been prohibited from operating a particular means of transport due to criminal activity serve their prohibitions back-to-back rather than concurrently. This means that if an individual is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for a certain period of time, and then later receives another prohibition on operating the same type of vehicle, the court can order that the second prohibition be served consecutively to the first. This ensures that the individual is kept off the road or out of other transportation for longer, and reduces the risk of them reoffending during that time. The use of section 259(2.1) is at the discretion of the court, and will depend on the circumstances of the case and the severity of the offence. It is an important tool in the Criminal Code of Canada that helps to keep dangerous drivers off the road and protect the public from harm caused by impaired driving and other transport-related offences.
Section 259(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that seeks to protect the public from the dangers posed by individuals who operate a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment while impaired. The section provides the court with the power to order that the time served under an order prohibiting the operation of a particular mode of transportation be served consecutively to any other order made under this section relating to the same mode of transportation that is in force. The section is particularly useful in cases where an individual has multiple driving-related offences, whether it be for impaired driving or other dangerous driving offences. In such cases, the court can ensure that the individual serves the required length of time to keep them off the road, and the consecutive serving of the time ensures that the individual does not have an opportunity to operate the vehicle or equipment during periods of time when they are technically" allowed to because they are not serving a sentence. The provision is also an important deterrent for potential repeat offenders. By knowing that they will face more consecutive orders, offenders will be more likely to work towards changing their behaviour and avoiding any situations that may lead to them being banned from operating their preferred means of transportation. Section 259(2.1) provides significant protection to the public by ensuring that those who are unfit to operate a mode of transportation are prevented from doing so for an extended period. By ordering consecutive serving of a prohibition order, the court is preventing the creation of loopholes that may be exploited by offenders who would otherwise be barred from driving for specific periods. However, it is important to note that the section must be used with caution and only in cases where it is deemed necessary. Imposing cumulative or consecutive punishment without a proper evaluation of each individual case may lead to the disproportionality of the punishment and may also lead to arbitrary enforcement of the law. In conclusion, Section 259(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an essential provision that allows the court to protect the public by prohibiting unfit individuals from operating a particular mode of transportation. The power to order consecutive serving of prohibition orders also provides an essential tool for preventing repeat offenders from endangering public safety repeatedly. However, it is important that this provision is used with caution, and each case must be evaluated and punished proportionately.
Section 259(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows the court to impose an order prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or railway equipment. This order can be made in addition to other orders made under Section 259 of the Criminal Code. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations to keep in mind. One key consideration is the impact of this order on the individual's life. If the individual relies on a particular mode of transportation for work or other important activities, a prohibition order could have serious consequences. It is important to consider whether there are alternative modes of transportation that the individual could use, and whether the prohibition order is necessary to achieve the desired outcome. Another consideration is the potential consequences of violating the prohibition order. Violating an order made under Section 259 of the Criminal Code is a criminal offense, and can result in significant fines, imprisonment, or other penalties. It is important to advise the individual of these consequences and to ensure that they fully understand the terms of the order. One strategy that could be employed when dealing with Section 259(2.1) is to negotiate with the Crown to seek a lesser penalty or to have the prohibition order limited in scope. For example, it may be possible to negotiate a time-limited prohibition order that only takes effect during certain hours or on certain days of the week. This could allow the individual to continue using the mode of transportation they need while still achieving the desired outcome of the court order. Another strategy is to challenge the imposition of the prohibition order altogether. This could involve arguing that the prohibition order is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome or that it is too severe given the circumstances. It may also be possible to argue that the order violates the individual's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ultimately, the best strategy will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. It is important to consult with a lawyer experienced in criminal law and with Section 259 of the Criminal Code to determine the best course of action.