Criminal Code of Canada - section 322(2) - Time when theft completed

section 322(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A person commits theft by moving or causing something to be moved with intent to steal.

SECTION WORDING

322(2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.

EXPLANATION

Section 322(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the actus reus of theft, which is the physical act of stealing. The section states that a person commits theft when they move or cause to be moved something that does not belong to them, with the intention of stealing it. The physical act of moving the item, or beginning to cause it to become movable, is sufficient to constitute theft. The section also clarifies that theft can occur even if the item is not permanently taken from the owner. For instance, if an individual takes an object from a store with the intent to steal it, but puts it back before leaving, they can still be charged with theft under this section of the Criminal Code of Canada. The mens rea element of theft is the intention to steal, which means that the person must have had the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the item. If the individual only had the intention of borrowing the item temporarily, they cannot be charged with theft. The severity of the offence is determined by the value of the item stolen, with higher value items resulting in more severe penalties. If the property stolen is valued over $5,000, the offence is considered to be a major indictable offence, which carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison. In summary, Section 322(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the physical act of theft, which includes moving or causing something to be moved with the intent to steal. The seriousness of the offence is determined by the value of the item stolen, and the potential penalties range from fines to imprisonment.

COMMENTARY

Section 322(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is the provision that defines the criminal offense of theft. It broadly defines theft and sets out the essential elements of the offense. According to this section, a person commits theft when they have the intent to steal something and move it or cause it to move or begin to become movable. Theft is one of the most common criminal offenses committed in Canada. It is a crime that involves the taking of property that belongs to another person without their consent. Property can be anything tangible or intangible, including money, electronic gadgets, jewelry, and intellectual property. Theft can also include fraud, embezzlement, and shoplifting. To commit the offense of theft, a person must have the general intent to steal the property. The person must possess the mens rea or the guilty knowledge that they are committing a crime, and they must intend to deprive the owner of the property permanently or temporarily. Theft can be classified into two categories, namely theft over $5000 and theft under $5000. Theft over $5000 is considered a more serious offense and carries a maximum punishment of ten years imprisonment, whereas theft under $5000 carries a maximum punishment of two years imprisonment. In addition to criminal prosecution, a person convicted of theft may also face civil action. The victim may sue the thief for damages for the loss of property and any other damages arising out of the crime. Section 322(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada aims to protect people's property rights and ensure that people can enjoy their property without fear of theft. It promotes the protection of both individual property rights and the economic stability of society. On the other hand, the interpretation of this section has not been without controversy. One issue that has arisen is whether the requirement of 'moving' or 'causing to move' places an unduly high burden of proof on the prosecution. It has been suggested that the courts should be allowed more flexibility in assessing the actus reus or the physical element of the offense. Another issue that has arisen is whether the theft must be complete for the crime to be committed. The courts have held that the offense of theft is complete as soon as the defendant takes the property, regardless of whether they have yet to move it or complete the act of theft. In conclusion, Section 322(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial section of the Criminal Code that defines the criminal offense of theft. It plays a significant role in protecting individuals' property rights and the economic stability of society. However, its interpretation has raised some issues, and there is a need for continued debate in this area. Nevertheless, as theft remains a significant problem in Canada, the law will continue to play a crucial role in curbing it.

STRATEGY

In dealing with section 322(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that must be taken into account. These considerations involve the legal framework surrounding the section, the nature of the offense, and the potential consequences of a conviction for theft. With these in mind, there are several strategies that could be employed to defend against theft charges. The legal framework surrounding section 322(2) must be fully understood before any strategies can be developed. The section defines theft as the act of moving or attempting to move anything with intent to steal. Furthermore, it is important to know that the prosecution must prove both the intent of the accused to steal and that the accused's actions amounted to more than mere preparation. These two elements form the foundation of any defense against theft charges. In assessing the nature of the offense, it is crucial to consider the circumstances that led to the alleged theft. This includes the value of the item that was allegedly stolen, how it was taken, and the accused's intentions. Additionally, it is important to consider the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the potential weaknesses in their case. These factors can shape the defense strategy. One potential defense strategy is to challenge the prosecution's evidence. This could involve attacking the reliability of the eyewitness testimony or the forensics evidence that the prosecution may possess. Additionally, the strategy may include challenging the identification of the accused as the person who committed the theft. If the prosecution's evidence is unreliable or insufficient, the charges may be withdrawn or reduced. Another strategy is to highlight the absence of an intent to steal. This involves proving that the accused had no intention of stealing the item in question. This may involve arguing that the accused believed they had a legal right to the item, that they had an innocent intention for possessing the item, or that they were unaware that they were taking the item. By raising reasonable doubt as to the accused's intent to steal, it may be possible to achieve an acquittal. A third strategy is to suggest that the accused was under duress at the time of the alleged theft. This would involve arguing that the accused was forced to take the item against their will, or that they suffered from a physical or mental impairment that prevented them from exercising free will. If the accused was under duress and had no choice in the matter, that could mean they did not have intent and might have a defense. In conclusion, the strategic considerations when dealing with section 322(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada are many, but there are several strategies that can be employed to defend against theft charges. Challenging the prosecution's evidence, highlighting the absence of intent, and suggesting that the accused was under duress are just a few of the strategies that an effective defense team might pursue. By capitalizing on the strengths of the case and using these strategic approaches, it may be possible to achieve a favorable outcome in a theft case.