INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Section 360(1) allows evidence of previous theft or similar convictions to be used to prove knowledge of unlawfully obtained property in a current case.
SECTION WORDING
360(1) Where an accused is charged with an offence under section 354 or paragraph 356(1)(b) and evidence is adduced that the subject-matter of the proceedings was found in his possession, evidence that the accused was, within five years before the proceedings were commenced, convicted of an offence involving theft or an offence under section 354 is admissible at any stage of the proceedings and may be taken into consideration for the purpose of proving that the accused knew that the property that forms the subject-matter of the proceedings was unlawfully obtained.
EXPLANATION
Section 360(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the admissibility of evidence in cases where an accused person is charged with an offence under section 354 or paragraph 356(1)(b), and there is evidence that the subject matter of the proceedings was found in their possession. In such cases, evidence of the accused's prior conviction for a theft-related offence or an offence involving section 354 can be admitted at any stage of the proceedings. The purpose of this section is to allow the court to consider whether the accused knew that the property they possessed was unlawfully obtained. In other words, evidence of prior convictions can be used to establish the accused's knowledge, which is often a key element of the offence being charged. If the accused has a history of theft-related offences, this can be seen as evidence that they should have known that the property in question was obtained illegally. However, it is important to note that this section only applies where the prior conviction is within five years of the current proceedings. This limitation is intended to prevent evidence of very old convictions from being used unfairly against the accused. Overall, section 360(1) reflects the importance of considering all relevant evidence when determining guilt or innocence in criminal cases. By allowing evidence of prior convictions to be admitted, the section ensures that the court has access to all available information in order to make a fair and just ruling.
COMMENTARY
Section 360(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides specific provisions for the admissibility of evidence in cases of theft and offenses under Section 354 or paragraph 356(1)(b). According to this section, where an accused is charged with such an offense and evidence is brought forward that the subject matter of the proceedings was found in their possession, evidence of prior convictions within the last five years involving theft or offenses under Section 354 may be admitted at any stage of the proceedings. The purpose of this provision is to provide the court with information that may help to prove that the accused knew that the property they were in possession of was unlawfully obtained. This is important in cases of theft, as it can be difficult to prove that an accused was aware that the property they had was stolen. By allowing evidence of prior convictions to be introduced, the court can consider the accused's previous actions and behaviors and make an informed decision about their knowledge of the property's origin. In practical terms, this provision creates a significant evidentiary burden on the accused. If they have a prior conviction for theft or an offense under Section 354, this information may be used against them in any future proceedings where they are accused of a similar offense. This creates a strong incentive for individuals to avoid committing such crimes and to demonstrate their rehabilitation if they do have a prior record. While this provision has been criticized by some as being overly restrictive, it is important to remember that it is only applicable in specific cases where evidence of prior convictions may be relevant to proving an accused's knowledge of the unlawfully obtained property. In addition, this provision does not allow evidence of prior convictions to be used to infer that an accused is generally predisposed to committing criminal acts or to assume guilt in the current proceedings. Overall, Section 360(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an important tool for the court to consider in cases of theft and related offenses. It ensures that relevant evidence can be considered and weighed when making a decision, and may help to deter repeat offenders by creating a significant evidentiary burden on those with prior convictions.
STRATEGY
Section 360(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows for the admission of evidence of a prior conviction for theft or an offence under section 354 in order to establish knowledge that the property in question was unlawfully obtained. This provision can have significant implications for the defence strategy in such cases. One key strategic consideration is the potential prejudice that may arise from the admission of evidence of a prior conviction. The defence may argue that such evidence is inherently prejudicial and could lead to a conviction based on past misconduct rather than the specific offence at hand. In response, the Crown may argue that the evidence is relevant to establishing knowledge and therefore necessary to the case. Another strategic consideration involves the timing and method of introducing the evidence. The defence may choose to address the prior conviction evidence head-on during cross-examination or to attempt to exclude it altogether through a pre-trial application. Alternatively, the Crown may choose to present the evidence early on in the proceedings in order to establish a strong case for guilt. In cases where the prior conviction evidence is particularly damaging to the defence, strategic considerations may also involve plea bargaining or negotiating a plea deal in order to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence based on the prior conviction. Overall, dealing with section 360(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires careful strategic planning and a thorough understanding of the legal and evidentiary implications of using prior conviction evidence in such cases. The defence must be prepared to navigate potential prejudice and fight for a fair trial, while the Crown must carefully balance the need for relevant evidence with the potential of prejudice.