INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Presence at animal fighting or baiting is considered proof of encouragement, aid or assistance.
SECTION WORDING
445.1(4) For the purpose of proceedings under paragraph (1)(b), evidence that an accused was present at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he or she encouraged, aided or assisted at the fighting or baiting.
EXPLANATION
Section 445.1(4) of the Canadian Criminal Code addresses the issue of animal fighting, which is a cruel and inhumane act that is unfortunately still practiced in certain circles despite being illegal. The subsection states that evidence of an individual's presence at an animal or bird fighting or baiting event can be taken as proof of their participation, absent any contradicting evidence. Therefore, being present at such an event is enough to imply that the accused encouraged, aided, or assisted in the act of animal fighting, which is a serious offense. The subsection was introduced to make it easier to prosecute individuals involved in animal fighting, as it can often be difficult to obtain evidence of direct participation. This law recognizes that the mere act of attending or being present at such events can be considered an act of encouragement and complicity. This allows law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute those who contribute to this heinous practice, even if they were not directly involved in the physical abuse of the animals. The Canadian government has taken a strong stance against animal cruelty, and this subsection is just one example of the measures in place to protect animals and prevent such vile practices. While Canada has made significant strides forward in the ethical treatment of animals, there remains work to be done to eradicate abuse and cruelty towards animals. This subsection is a step in the right direction, showing a firm commitment to the protection of animal welfare.
COMMENTARY
Section 445.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that if an accused was present during the fighting or baiting of animals or birds, it will be considered evidence that they encouraged, aided or assisted in the act. This section has been created to deal with the problem of animal cruelty, which has become a significant concern in Canada. Animal fighting and baiting have been a part of human history for a very long time. In modern times, people have used animals to fight each other for entertainment purposes. The use of animals for such purposes is not only inhumane but also illegal. It is a violation of animal rights, and it promotes violence and aggression. The Criminal Code of Canada considers animal fighting and baiting a criminal offense. Section 445 of the Criminal Code clearly defines animal cruelty as an offense and lays down the punishment for such offenses. The offense includes unlawfully, intentionally or recklessly causing an animal to suffer as well as promoting or engaging in animal fighting or baiting. Section 445.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is significant because it makes it easier for the authorities to prove that an accused was involved in animal fighting or baiting. The provision has been created to ensure that individuals who inflict harm on animals are punished accordingly. The main objective of the provision is to make it easier for the authorities to prove that an accused was present during the act of animal fighting or baiting. The provision takes into consideration the fact that in most cases, it is difficult to prove the involvement of the accused in animal fighting or baiting. Therefore, the mere presence of the accused during the act is considered evidence for aiding and abetting. The provision seeks to establish a strong case against the accused by using circumstantial evidence to prove his or her involvement. The provision also provides a level of protection to animals. By stating that animal fighting or baiting is an offense, the law recognizes the value of animal welfare and seeks to protect them from harm. Animals deserve protection from human cruelty, and this provision ensures that those who violate that protection are punished. Furthermore, the provision acts as a deterrent to those who may consider engaging in animal fighting or baiting. The provision sends a clear message that animal cruelty will not be tolerated, and those who engage in it will be punished. It also raises public awareness about the issue of animal cruelty and instills a sense of responsibility in individuals to report such incidents. In conclusion, Section 445.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that aims to protect animals from cruelty. The provision recognizes the value of animal welfare and seeks to punish those who violate it. The provision acts as a deterrent to those who may consider engaging in animal fighting or baiting and raises public awareness about the issue. Overall, this provision serves as a significant step towards ensuring that animals are treated with respect and dignity, and their welfare is protected under the law.
STRATEGY
Section 445.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that seeks to make it easier to prosecute individuals who aid, encourage or assist in the fighting or baiting of animals or birds. The provision provides that if an accused is present at the scene of the activity, then it can be inferred that they were involved in the activity. There are several strategic considerations when dealing with this provision: Firstly, it is important to note that the provision only applies to proceedings under paragraph (1)(b) of section 445.1 of the Criminal Code. This means that it can only be used in cases where an individual is being prosecuted for aiding or abetting in the fighting or baiting of animals or birds. It does not apply to cases where an individual is being prosecuted for actually participating in the activity. Secondly, the provision only applies in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. This means that if the accused can provide evidence to show that they were not involved in the activity, then the provision will not apply. This could include providing an alibi or showing that they were not aware of the activity that was taking place. Thirdly, the provision creates an evidentiary presumption. This means that the burden of proof is shifted to the accused to show that they were not involved in the activity. This can be a difficult burden to overcome, as the accused will need to provide evidence to show that they were not involved. This could be particularly challenging in cases where the accused was present at the scene of the activity, but did not actively participate. Given these strategic considerations, there are several strategies that could be employed when dealing with this provision. One strategy is to challenge the applicability of the provision. This could involve arguing that the provision does not apply in the particular circumstances of the case, or that it is unconstitutional. Another strategy is to provide evidence to rebut the presumption created by the provision. This could involve providing evidence to show that the accused was not involved in the activity, or that they were not aware of the activity that was taking place. A third strategy is to negotiate a plea agreement with the prosecution. This could involve pleading guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a reduced sentence. This strategy may be particularly effective in cases where the accused does not have strong evidence to rebut the presumption created by the provision. Overall, when dealing with section 445.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is important to be aware of the strategic considerations and to develop effective strategies to address them. By doing so, accused individuals can increase their chances of a favourable outcome in their case.