Criminal Code of Canada - section 273(4) - Sequence of convictions only

section 273(4)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section states that only the order of convictions is relevant, not the order of committing offenses or when they occurred in relation to convictions.

SECTION WORDING

273(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 273(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that sets out a specific rule of interpretation for the sentencing of offenders who have multiple convictions. The provision provides that when determining the sentence for an offender with multiple convictions, the only consideration that can be taken into account is the sequence of the convictions themselves. The sequence of commission of offenses or whether any offense occurred before or after a conviction cannot be considered. This provision aims to ensure that offenders are sentenced fairly, based purely on their criminal record and not on other factors that may influence the severity of the sentence, such as the chronology of the offenses. For example, imagine an offender who has two convictions, one for drug possession and another more recent one for assault. Under section 273(4), the judge could only consider the sequence of these two convictions, so if the drug possession conviction came first, this would not necessarily mitigate the sentence for the more recent assault conviction. Overall, this provision helps to ensure consistency and fairness in sentencing, as it removes the potential for bias or other factors to influence the severity of the sentence. By focusing solely on the criminal record of the offender, judges can make more objective and consistent decisions when imposing sentences for multiple convictions.

COMMENTARY

Section 273(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a relatively simple provision that sets out a specific rule to be applied in cases where an accused is facing multiple sexual offence charges. Under this provision, the court is required to consider only the sequence of convictions when determining whether an accused person should be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence for repeat sexual offences. In other words, the court is not allowed to consider the order in which the offences were committed or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction. This rule was put in place to ensure that the sentencing process remains fair and consistent, and that an accused person is not punished more harshly for committing offences that took place before they were convicted of other, unrelated crimes. The reason for this rule is fairly straightforward. In cases where an accused is facing multiple sexual offence charges, it is not uncommon for some of those offences to have taken place before the accused was ever convicted of any other crimes. This can create a situation where an accused person is punished more severely than someone who committed similar crimes, but was simply lucky enough to avoid detection or prosecution until after their first conviction. For example, consider a case where an accused is charged with both sexual assault and sexual interference. The accused may have committed both of these offences before ever being convicted of any previous crimes. Under the general sentencing rules, the court would be required to consider the order in which the crimes were committed when determining an appropriate sentence. This could potentially result in a harsher sentence for the accused, who would receive a mandatory minimum sentence for repeat sexual offences based on the sequence of commission of the offences, rather than the sequence of convictions. By contrast, under section 273(4), the court is required to only consider the sequence of convictions when determining whether the accused should receive a mandatory minimum sentence for repeat sexual offences. This ensures that the sentencing process remains fair and consistent, regardless of whether an accused person has committed multiple sexual offences before or after their conviction for other crimes. There are certainly arguments to be made both for and against section 273(4). Some may argue that the rule is too lenient on repeat sexual offenders, who may have committed multiple crimes before ever being caught and convicted. Others may argue that the rule is necessary to prevent undue harshness in sentencing, and to ensure that an accused person is not punished more severely for crimes that may have taken place years before. Overall, however, section 273(4) is an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that helps to ensure a fair and consistent sentencing process for those accused of sexual offences. By prioritizing the sequence of convictions over the sequence of commission of offences, this provision helps to prevent arbitrary and unjust sentencing practices that could otherwise result in unjustified harshness or leniency.

STRATEGY

Section 273(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines that the only relevant consideration when determining the sequence of convictions is the order in which the convictions were obtained, rather than the order in which the offenses were committed. This provision is important because it can have significant implications for sentencing and parole decisions. As such, criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors must consider the strategic implications of Section 273(4) when building their cases. One of the key strategic considerations when dealing with Section 273(4) is the sequencing of the offenses and convictions. In order to maximize the impact of this provision for their clients, defense lawyers will typically seek to ensure that the convictions for the most serious offenses are obtained first. This is because subsequent convictions for lesser offenses may be viewed more leniently by the courts, particularly if they are seen as stemming from the individual's rehabilitation efforts. On the other hand, prosecutors will typically seek to obtain convictions for all relevant offenses as early as possible in the criminal justice process. This is because subsequent convictions may be viewed more harshly by the courts, particularly if they are seen as evidence of a continuing pattern of criminal behavior. Another strategic consideration when dealing with Section 273(4) is the impact of multiple convictions on sentencing and parole decisions. For example, if an individual has been convicted of multiple offenses, the courts may take these convictions into account when determining the appropriate sentence. In such cases, it may be possible to negotiate a plea bargain or to seek a reduced sentence in exchange for pleading guilty to one or more offenses. Similarly, parole boards may consider an individual's history of convictions when making decisions about early release. In these cases, it may be advisable to focus on obtaining early release for the most serious offense for which the individual has been convicted, in order to maximize the chances of a successful parole application. In terms of specific strategies that could be employed in cases involving Section 273(4), some options may include seeking adjournments in order to delay the timing of convictions, seeking to consolidate multiple offenses into a single conviction, or seeking to have certain convictions overturned or quashed. Defense lawyers may also seek to use Section 273(4) to seek reduced sentences or early release for clients who have been convicted of multiple offenses. In conclusion, Section 273(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines an important consideration when dealing with multiple convictions. Both defense lawyers and prosecutors must carefully consider the sequencing of offenses and convictions, as well as the potential impact of multiple convictions on sentencing and parole decisions. By employing strategic tactics such as plea bargaining, consolidating offenses, and seeking to delay or overturn convictions, lawyers can work to protect the rights of their clients and achieve more favorable outcomes in court.