section 352

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Possession of a tool for breaking into vending/currency machines without lawful excuse is illegal and punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment.

SECTION WORDING

352 Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, has in his possession any instrument suitable for breaking into a coin-operated device or a currency exchange device, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for breaking into a coin-operated device or a currency exchange device, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

EXPLANATION

Section 352 of the Criminal Code of Canada is aimed at deterring individuals from possessing tools or instruments that can be used to break into coin-operated or currency exchange devices. The section criminalizes the act of possessing such instruments without a lawful excuse, and a person charged under this section can be found guilty of an indictable offence with a maximum imprisonment term of two years. In order to secure a conviction under this section, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. The accused was in possession of an instrument suitable for breaking into a coin-operated or currency exchange device. 2. The possession was without lawful excuse. 3. The circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument was used or intended to be used for breaking into a coin-operated or currency exchange device. The law recognizes that certain individuals, such as locksmiths or repair technicians, may have a lawful excuse for possessing such instruments. However, if a person possesses these tools without a lawful excuse and under circumstances that suggest they may have been or will be used to break into a coin-operated or currency exchange device, they can be charged under this section. In conclusion, Section 352 of the Criminal Code of Canada serves as a deterrent to individuals intending to use these tools to commit crimes of theft or mischief. The law seeks to create a safe and secure environment for businesses that rely on coin-operated or currency exchange devices and to protect the public from financial losses.

COMMENTARY

Section 352 of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes that anyone who possesses an instrument suitable for breaking into a coin-operated device or a currency exchange device, without lawful excuse, is guilty of an indictable offence. This section of the Criminal Code serves the purpose of protecting property rights and ensuring the safety and security of individuals and their property. This section is of particular importance due to the prevalence of coin-operated and currency exchange devices used in everyday life, such as vending machines, parking meters, and ATMs. The possession of an instrument, such as a lock-pick, that could potentially be used to break into one of these devices, creates a potential threat to the physical and financial security of individuals and businesses. It is important to note that a person must possess an instrument suitable for breaking into a device under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is intended to be used for breaking into a device. As such, possession of the instrument alone is not sufficient to establish guilt under this section. The burden of proof falls on the prosecution to show that the circumstances under which the instrument was possessed support a reasonable inference that it was intended to be used for breaking into a device. The penalty for breaching Section 352 of the Criminal Code is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. This reflects the seriousness of the offence and serves as a deterrent to individuals who may consider possessing such an instrument for nefarious purposes. It is important to consider the potential impact of this section on individuals who may possess lock-picks or other similar tools for legitimate purposes, such as locksmiths or hobbyists. In such cases, individuals may have a lawful excuse for possessing such tools and could present a defence against any charges of possession under Section 352. It is ultimately up to the court to determine whether or not the excuse provided is lawful and reasonable in the circumstances. Overall, Section 352 serves an important purpose in preserving the safety and security of individuals and their property. It highlights the importance of preventing potential threats before they become actualized and in doing so demonstrates the Canadian government's commitment to ensuring a safe and secure society for all.

STRATEGY

Section 352 of the Criminal Code of Canada imposes criminal liability on any person found in possession of an instrument suitable for breaking into a coin-operated or currency exchange device, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that such an instrument has been used or intended to be used for breaking into such a device. In this regard, stakeholders should consider some strategic considerations and strategies when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada. One strategic consideration is to assess the factual scenario and context of the alleged offence. A person found in possession of an instrument suitable for breaking into a coin-operated or currency exchange device may be able to establish a lawful excuse for such possession, which would serve as a defense against an allegation under s.352 of the Criminal Code of Canada. For example, a person may be able to show that he or she is a locksmith or a repairer of such devices, or that the instrument was intended for use in a legitimate context, such as for the person's own vending machine or parking meter. In order to establish such a defense, the person would need to be able to prove that his or her possession of the instrument was lawful and not intended for an unlawful purpose. A second strategic consideration is to assess the evidentiary burden of proof. The prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person found in possession of the instrument was doing so without a lawful excuse and with the intent to use it for breaking into a coin-operated or currency exchange device. Therefore, the defense could employ a strategy of challenging the prosecution's case by attempting to cast doubt on the evidentiary proof of the circumstances that give rise to the reasonable inference that the instrument was intended to be used unlawfully. This could involve challenging the reliability or credibility of the prosecution witnesses, or by introducing evidence that casts doubt on the inference, such as evidence showing that the person did not have access to such devices or circumstances that contradict the inference. Another strategic consideration is to explore alternative resolutions, such as plea bargaining or diversion. For instance, the accused may be able to enter into a plea bargain with the prosecution, where the accused agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge or to provide information or assistance in exchange for a more lenient sentence. Similarly, the accused may be able to seek diversion, which involves alternative mechanisms for addressing the underlying issues that led to the alleged offense, such as counseling or community service. These alternative resolutions can be effective strategies for avoiding a criminal conviction and the associated consequences, such as a criminal record or imprisonment. In conclusion, stakeholders should consider several strategic considerations and employ strategies when dealing with an allegation under section 352 of the Criminal Code of Canada. These considerations and strategies include assessing the factual scenario and context of the alleged offense, assessing the evidentiary burden of proof and challenging the prosecution's case, and exploring alternative resolutions such as plea bargaining or diversion. Such strategic considerations and strategies can help to increase the chances of a favorable outcome in the criminal justice process.