section 417(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Possessing or selling marked public stores without lawful authority is a criminal offense.

SECTION WORDING

417(2) Every one who, without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him, receives, possesses, keeps, sells or delivers public stores that he knows bear a distinguishing mark is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

EXPLANATION

Section 417(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the offence of possessing, selling, delivering, or receiving public stores that bear a distinguishing mark without lawful authority. Public stores refer to any goods or items that are owned or used by the federal or provincial government, including military equipment, firearms, ammunition, and other items used by law enforcement agencies. The distinguishing mark referred to in this section may include any official sign, marking, or emblem that indicates the public store belongs to the government. Anyone who knowingly possesses, sells, or delivers such goods without lawful authority is committing a crime. The burden of proof lies on the accused, meaning that they must prove that they had the appropriate authorization to possess, sell, or deliver such goods. If they cannot provide proof, they may face imprisonment for up to two years if convicted of an indictable offence. Alternatively, they may also be charged with an offence punishable on summary conviction, which may result in a fine or imprisonment for up to six months. This section serves to protect public property from theft, unauthorized possession, sale, or delivery, and to deter individuals from engaging in such criminal activities. It reinforces the importance of obtaining the necessary authorization or permission before handling public stores and serves as a deterrent to prevent individuals from committing crimes against the government.

COMMENTARY

Section 417(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the unlawful receipt, possession, keeping, selling, or delivery of public stores that bear a distinguishing mark, without lawful authority. The law seeks to protect public stores that bear a distinguishing mark from unauthorized use, sale, or disposal. Public stores encompass a wide range of items, including but not limited to, firearms, ammunition, ammunition components, explosive substances, military uniforms, and equipment. These items are marked for a good reason; they belong to the government and are intended for specific purposes, such as military or law enforcement use. Unauthorized use of these items could result in significant harm to public safety, national security, and the economy. The law requires that anyone in possession of public stores that bear a distinguishing mark must prove their lawful authority to do so. This provision shifts the burden of proof to the accused, who must demonstrate that they have the legal right to possess or use public stores with a distinguishing mark. The consequences for violating this law are severe. Those found guilty of an indictable offence under section 417(2)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada can face a maximum sentence of two years in prison. Those found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction under section 417(2)(b) may face a maximum sentence of six months in prison. This law is important because it not only protects public stores from unauthorized use but also serves as a deterrent to those who may consider using or selling such items for personal gain. It also emphasizes the government's responsibility to safeguard its resources and ensure the proper use of public stores. However, the ambiguity in the meaning of "lawful authority" in this provision may create challenges during enforcement. To satisfy this requirement, the accused may provide a range of justifications, such as having legitimate possession of the item for lawful purposes or blanket authorization from their employer. These defences may lead to lengthy court proceedings and challenges in proving whether the accused had lawful authority. In conclusion, Section 417(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an essential provision that safeguards public stores while emphasizing the responsibility of the government to protect its resources. The provision highlights the criminal consequences of unauthorized use, possession, or sale of public stores bearing a distinguishing mark. Nevertheless, the provision's vagueness in defining "lawful authority" may raise significant challenges during law enforcement and court proceedings, which is a matter that needs to be addressed in future legislative reforms.

STRATEGY

Section 417(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that regulates the sale, possession, and delivery of public stores that bear a distinguishing mark. The code defines public stores as any item procured or created by the government for public use, including firearms, ammunition, or explosives. This provision is intended to prevent the unauthorized sale or use of government property and safeguard public safety. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada, several strategic considerations must be taken into account. First, it is crucial to understand the elements of the offence and the applicable penalties. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that the accused had possession or control over the public store, that he knew the store bore a distinguishing mark, and that he lacked lawful authority to possess the item. The penalty for a conviction under this provision ranges from imprisonment for up to two years for an indictable offence to a summary conviction punishable by a fine or up to six months in prison. Second, it is crucial to know the various defences available to an accused person. The most common defence is to challenge the prosecution's ability to prove the accused had knowledge of the store's distinctive mark. A defendant may also claim that he had lawful authority to possess the item, obtained the item unknowingly, or was coerced into holding the store illegally. Third, the defendant's background and circumstances are essential factors to consider when deciding on an appropriate defence strategy. For example, if the accused is a law enforcement officer, he may have a lawful excuse to be in possession of public stores, making it imperative to prove the accused had no other intention but to perform his duties. Similarly, a defendant with no prior criminal record may be a good candidate for negotiating a plea bargain, where the prosecution agrees to reduce the charges or offer probation in exchange for a guilty plea. Fourth, it is crucial to select a defence lawyer with experience in representing clients charged under Section 417(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition, the lawyer must have knowledge of the various legal technicalities surrounding this provision, such as the rules of evidence, the need for forensic testing, and other procedural requirements. Several strategies could be employed when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada, depending on the circumstances of the case and the available evidence. One possible strategy is to challenge the prosecution's evidence of the distinctive mark, arguing that the mark is not clear or cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Another strategy is to claim lawful authority, such as by demonstrating that the accused obtained the item through a valid government contract or that he was authorized to transport or store the store for government purposes. In conclusion, Section 417(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision that regulates the sale and possession of public stores that bear a distinguishing mark. When dealing with this section, strategic considerations such as understanding the offence's elements, identifying potential defences, and selecting an appropriate legal representation are critical for a successful defence. Effective defence strategies may involve challenging the prosecution's evidence or arguing lawful authority, depending on the case's circumstances.