section 421(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

An accused charged with an offence relating to distinguishing marks on stores is presumed to have known about the marks if they were in government service or employment, or dealt in marine stores or old metals at the time of the offence.

SECTION WORDING

421(2) An accused who is charged with an offence under subsection 417(2) shall be presumed to have known that the stores in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed bore a distinguishing mark within the meaning of that subsection at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed if he was, at that time, in the service or employment of Her Majesty or was a dealer in marine stores or in old metals.

EXPLANATION

Section 421(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the offence of possessing or disposing of property marked for identifying purposes. It establishes a presumption that an accused person charged with an offence under subsection 417(2) had knowledge that the property in question bore a distinguishing mark within the meaning of that subsection at the time the offence was committed. This presumption is applicable if the accused was in the service or employment of Her Majesty or was a dealer in marine stores or in old metals at the time of the alleged offence. The purpose of this presumption is to ensure that those who work in industries dealing with potentially valuable, marked goods - such as those in the marine or metal industries - are held to a higher standard of accountability for their actions. It reflects the recognition that these workers, by virtue of their employment, are more likely to come into contact with marked property and that they should be deemed to be aware of the possibility of its existence. However, it is important to note that this presumption is a rebuttable one. An accused person may challenge the presumption and provide evidence to prove that they did not have knowledge of the distinguishing mark at the time of the alleged offence. This requirement ensures that the accused's right to a fair trial is respected, and that the presumption operates as an evidentiary tool rather than a conclusive factual determination. In conclusion, Section 421(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes a presumption of knowledge of distinguishing marks for certain categories of accused persons charged with offences under subsection 417(2). The presumption serves the purpose of promoting accountability and ensuring that those who work with marked goods are held to a higher standard of responsibility. However, it is not a conclusive determination and can be challenged if the accused provides sufficient rebuttal evidence.

COMMENTARY

Section 421(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada creates a presumption of knowledge for those accused of an offence under subsection 417(2). In particular, this section presumes that an accused individual knew that the stores in question bore a distinguishing mark within the meaning of that subsection at the time the offence was committed if they were in the service or employment of Her Majesty or worked as a dealer in marine stores or old metals. The purpose of this provision is to shift the burden of proof onto the accused in cases where their occupation or employment makes it likely that they would have knowledge of the distinguishing marks required under subsection 417(2). In other words, the law presumes that people working in these industries have specialized knowledge that would make it difficult for them to claim ignorance of the requirement for distinguishing marks. While this presumption may seem unfair at first glance, it is important to note that it does not automatically result in a conviction. Rather, it simply means that the accused must be able to provide evidence to rebut this presumption if they hope to avoid a conviction. In other words, if the accused can show that they did not know that the stores in question bore the required distinguishing marks, then they may be able to avoid conviction. Overall, Section 421(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is just one example of the many legal presumptions that can be found throughout Canadian law. While these presumptions may sometimes seem unfair, they are often necessary to ensure that justice is served and that guilty parties are held accountable for their actions. It is important for anyone involved in the criminal justice system - including accused individuals, lawyers, judges, and policymakers - to have a clear understanding of these presumptions and how they operate in practice. By doing so, we can help to ensure that our justice system remains fair, impartial, and effective for all Canadians.

STRATEGY

Section 421(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada sets out a presumption that an accused who is charged with an offence under subsection 417(2) knew that the stores in question bore a distinguishing mark. This section can have significant implications for individuals who are charged with this offence, as it can make it more difficult to mount a successful defence. One strategy that can be employed when dealing with this section is to challenge the presumption itself. This can be done by presenting evidence to show that the accused did not, in fact, know that the stores in question bore a distinguishing mark. This can involve presenting evidence regarding the accused's knowledge or lack thereof, or presenting evidence about the nature of the stores in question and whether they were clearly marked. Another strategy that can be employed is to argue that the accused did not commit the offence. This can involve presenting evidence to show that the accused was not responsible for the act that led to the charge, or that the accused did not have the requisite intention to commit the offence. In cases where the accused was in the service or employment of Her Majesty or was a dealer in marine stores or in old metals at the time of the alleged offence, another strategy that can be employed is to argue that the accused was acting in the course of their employment. This can involve presenting evidence to show that the accused was carrying out their duties as required by their employment, and that they did not have any criminal intent. Regardless of the strategy employed, it is important for individuals charged under this section to seek legal advice as early as possible. A skilled criminal defence lawyer will be able to assess the evidence and build a strong defence tailored to the individual circumstances of the case. In conclusion, when dealing with section 421(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is important to carefully consider the evidence and the available strategies. Challenging the presumption, arguing that the accused did not commit the offence, or arguing that the accused was acting in the course of their employment are all potential strategies that could be employed. Ultimately, seeking the advice of a skilled criminal defence lawyer is critical to building a strong defence and achieving a positive outcome.