section 719(5)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Time prior to execution of warrant of committal does not count as part of term of imprisonment for fines with term of imprisonment in default of payment.

SECTION WORDING

719(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where the sentence that is imposed is a fine with a term of imprisonment in default of payment, no time prior to the day of execution of the warrant of committal counts as part of the term of imprisonment.

EXPLANATION

Section 719(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with the imposition of fines and imprisonment for non-payment of fines. This provision states that where a person is given a fine along with a term of imprisonment in default of payment, any time spent in custody prior to the execution of the warrant of committal will not count towards the term of imprisonment. In simpler terms, this section basically means that if a person is unable to pay the fine imposed on them and is sentenced to imprisonment as a result, they will not receive any credit for the time they spend in custody leading up to their imprisonment. This provision intends to ensure that people who are sentenced to imprisonment in default of payment actually serve the full term of imprisonment as prescribed by law. However, it is important to note that this provision only applies when a person is sentenced to a fine and imprisonment in default of payment. If a person is sentenced to imprisonment without any fines, or if they are able to pay the fine before the warrant of committal is issued, this provision does not apply. Overall, Section 719(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a necessary provision that helps ensure the fair and just administration of justice, and that sentences are served as prescribed by law.

COMMENTARY

Section 719(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with the imprisonment in default of payment of a fine. It states that in cases where a fine is imposed with a term of imprisonment in default of payment, no time prior to the execution of the warrant of committal counts towards the term of imprisonment. Simply put, if a person is unable to pay a fine that has been imposed on them, they may face imprisonment as a consequence. However, under this provision, the time that the person spends in jail prior to the warrant being executed does not count towards the term of imprisonment. At first glance, this provision may seem straightforward and reasonable. However, upon closer examination, it raises some concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Firstly, it is worth noting that the imposition of a fine as a punishment is often considered to be a more lenient alternative to imprisonment. While imprisonment can have devastating consequences for individuals and their families, fines are seen as a less severe form of punishment that can still deter individuals from committing criminal offences. The provision that allows imprisonment in default of payment of a fine seems to contradict this principle of leniency, as it effectively allows individuals to be jailed for failing to pay a financial penalty. Moreover, the provision seems to disregard the fact that many individuals who are unable to pay their fines may be facing financial hardship or poverty. For these individuals, the threat of imprisonment may only worsen their situation, as they may lose their jobs, housing, and even custody of their children as a result of being incarcerated. The provision fails to take into account the root causes of poverty and the systemic issues that contribute to financial hardship, which may prevent individuals from being able to pay their fines. Additionally, the provision may be seen as ineffectual in achieving its intended purpose of collecting fines. If individuals are unable to pay their fines, then they are unlikely to have the resources to pay for their own incarceration, which can be a significant burden on the criminal justice system. Moreover, imprisonment can often be counterproductive, as it may result in the individual being unable to contribute to society, pay their debts, or otherwise address the underlying issues that led to their imprisonment. Overall, while Section 719(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada may have been intended as a measure to ensure that individuals who are unable to pay their fines are held accountable for their actions, it raises serious questions about the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Instead of relying on imprisonment in default of payment, policymakers should be exploring alternative approaches to justice that take into account the root causes of poverty and financial hardship, while still holding individuals accountable for their actions.

STRATEGY

Section 719(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a unique provision that allows for a term of imprisonment to be imposed on an individual for failure to pay a fine. This section creates a hybrid sentence, where a fine is imposed as the primary sentence, but a term of imprisonment is assigned as a backup in the event of non-payment. It is important to understand the strategic considerations and available options when dealing with this provision. One significant consideration is the financial capability of the convicted individual. If a person is unable to pay the fine initially, it is unlikely that they will be able to pay later, which means they will face the imprisonment term at some point. Therefore, any sentencing strategy must factor in the financial means of the accused, which would determine their ability to pay the fine. Moreover, the convicted individual must also understand the details of the fine and conditions of the imprisonment in default of payment. Another crucial consideration is the length of the proposed imprisonment term. While section 719(5) does not affect the length of imprisonment imposed for non-payment, it is important to take this into account while considering alternatives to imprisonment. A person who cannot afford to pay fines may face more significant disadvantages, making it even more challenging after serving the term of imprisonment. One strategy that could be employed is the use of alternative sentencing options. Instead of imposing a fine or a term of imprisonment, a court may consider community service hours or probation as an alternative. This approach would allow the convicted individual to avoid jail time while serving their sentence in a more flexible manner. However, the availability of the alternative sentence option may depend on the severity of the crime. Another strategy would be to ensure that the fine imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence. It is essential to ensure that the amount of the fine is not higher than what the accused can reasonably be expected to pay. This is vital to prevent the individual from facing imprisonment for non-payment. Therefore, a judge must consider financial status before imposing fines. A court may also consider payment plans, which would allow the convicted person to pay their fine over time while still avoiding imprisonment for default. Finally, it is important to note that section 719(5) only applies where a term of imprisonment is imposed in default of payment of a fine. Consequently, if the accused can pay the fine, this provision does not apply, and they cannot be subject to imprisonment. Therefore, in a case where a person can pay their fine, it is essential to consider payment options to avoid any term of imprisonment. In conclusion, while section 719(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada may offer an alternative sentencing option, it comes with some strategic considerations that one must be aware of when dealing with this provision. The financial capability of the convicted individual, the length of the proposed imprisonment term, alternative sentencing options, proportionality of the fine, and the availability of payment plans are some of the essential factors that must be taken into account while dealing with a hybrid sentence. Therefore, a strategic approach should be employed to ensure that justice is served while mitigating the impact on the convicted individual.