INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
The sequence of convictions is the only consideration, regardless of the order of offences committed.
SECTION WORDING
272(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.
EXPLANATION
Section 272(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is designed to guide the legal system in addressing cases where an individual has committed multiple criminal offenses. In such cases, the court is required to consider the sequence of convictions when assessing the appropriate sentence for the offender. This means that regardless of the order in which the offenses were committed, the court should focus on the order in which they were convicted. This section is important because it ensures that the judicial process remains fair and impartial, and is not influenced by extraneous factors such as the order in which the offenses were committed. It also helps to eliminate any potential bias against an individual who may have committed multiple offenses over a prolonged period. For example, if an individual committed a series of thefts over a period of six months and was subsequently convicted of other offenses, the court would only consider the order of the convictions when determining an appropriate sentence. This is to avoid situations where an individual may be unfairly punished for the earlier offenses, simply because they were discovered later. In essence, Section 272(4) serves to ensure that the legal system remains objective and impartial, and that all individuals are treated fairly and justly regardless of when their offenses were committed. By focusing on the sequence of convictions, rather than the order of the offenses, the court is better equipped to provide a just and appropriate sentence that reflects the severity and nature of the crimes committed.
COMMENTARY
Section 272(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides guidance on how to interpret section 272(3), which deals with the admissibility of evidence of previous sexual activity of a complainant in sexual assault trials. This provision is significant because it limits the scope of evidence that can be admitted in court and ensures that complainants are not further victimized by having their prior sexual history put on trial. The section states that, for the purposes of section 272(3), the only question that should be considered is the sequence of convictions, and that no consideration should be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction. This means that only prior convictions can be used to support an argument for admission of evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activity, and not the mere suspicion or allegation of prior sexual activity without conviction. This provision is an important safeguard for complainants in sexual assault trials, as it places a high bar for the admission of evidence that could be prejudicial or harmful to the complainant's case. Prior to section 272(4), it was possible to admit evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activity in order to attack their credibility or character, even if the alleged prior activity had not resulted in a conviction or even charges being laid. This could include instances where the complainant had engaged in consensual sexual activity with the accused or others in the past, and could therefore be perceived as less credible or reliable. Section 272(4) has dramatically reduced the scope for the admission of such evidence, as it requires there to be a prior conviction before evidence of the complainant's sexual activity can be introduced. This means that the complainant is protected from irrelevant and potentially harmful evidence that has nothing to do with the facts of the case before the court. It also ensures that the focus remains on the specific allegations of the current offence being tried, rather than the complainant or accused's past sexual activity. Overall, section 272(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision aimed at addressing the issue of sexual assault and harassment. By limiting the scope of evidence that can be introduced in court, it ensures that complainants are protected from further victimization and that the legal system focuses on the facts of the specific case at hand. As such, it serves as an important step towards ensuring that complainants are treated with respect and dignity, while also contributing to a fair and just legal process that upholds the principles of justice and equality for all.
STRATEGY
Section 272(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that requires an accused person found guilty of sexual offences against a child to be sentenced consecutively for each of the offences. It mandates the judge to impose a consecutive sentence for each sexual offence against a child on the basis of the sequence of convictions, regardless of the sequence of commission of the offences. Therefore, when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada, several strategic considerations are necessary. The primary consideration is that a conviction for a sexual offence against a child should be avoided at all costs. Once the accused has been convicted, the judge has no choice but to impose a consecutive sentence for any other sexual offence that the accused may have committed against a child. Another strategic consideration to keep in mind is that the prosecution may bring multiple charges against the accused for sexual offences against a child. This can be a tactical move to ensure that the accused receives a lengthy sentence due to the consecutive sentencing requirement under section 272(4). To counter this strategy, the defence may seek to have the charges consolidated. This would mean that all the charges would be tried at the same time, thereby eliminating the possibility of multiple convictions that would lead to consecutive sentences. The defence may also look to plea bargain with the prosecution. A plea bargain is an agreement between the defence and the prosecution where the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. In cases where there is the possibility of multiple convictions under section 272(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada, a plea bargain may be a viable strategy. By pleading guilty to a lesser charge, the accused may be able to avoid the consecutive sentencing requirement and receive a reduced sentence. The defence can also challenge the constitutionality of section 272(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The sentencing provision has been criticized for being too harsh and for violating an accused person's right to a fair trial. If the defence can successfully challenge the constitutionality of section 272(4), the accused may be able to avoid the consecutive sentencing requirement or have their sentence reduced. In conclusion, section 272(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that requires careful consideration when dealing with sexual offences against a child. The sequence of convictions is the only factor considered in sentencing an accused who has committed multiple sexual offences against a child, and this can result in a lengthy sentence. Therefore, the defence must explore all available strategies, such as consolidating charges, plea bargaining, or challenging the constitutionality of the provision. Ultimately, the best strategy is to avoid a conviction altogether.