Criminal Code of Canada - section 83.26 - Sentences to be Served Consecutively

section 83.26

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A sentence for an offence under certain sections must be served consecutively to other punishments or sentences, except for a sentence of life imprisonment.

SECTION WORDING

83.26 A sentence, other than one of life imprisonment, imposed on a person for an offence under any of sections 83.02 to 83.04 and 83.18 to 83.23 shall be served consecutively to (a) any other punishment imposed on the person, other than a sentence of life imprisonment, for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events; and (b) any other sentence, other than one of life imprisonment, to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under any of those sections. 2001, c. 41, s. 4.

EXPLANATION

Section 83.26 of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with sentencing for certain offenses related to terrorism. This section mandates that any sentence, other than life imprisonment, imposed on an individual for an offense under sections 83.02 to 83.04 and 83.18 to 83.23 must be served consecutively to any other punishment handed down for offenses related to the same event or series of events. Essentially, this section ensures that if an individual is found guilty of multiple terrorism-related offenses that are connected, they will have to serve their sentences for each offense one after the other, rather than concurrently. This means that if someone is sentenced to 10 years for one offense and 15 years for another related offense, they will have to serve a total of 25 years in prison. This provision is important because it recognizes the severity of terrorism-related offenses and the need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. By ensuring that sentences are served consecutively, the legal system sends a clear message that terrorism will not be tolerated and those who engage in it will face significant consequences. Overall, section 83.26 serves as an important tool in combating terrorism and protecting the safety and security of Canadians.

COMMENTARY

Section 83.26 of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the sentencing of individuals who commit offences under various sections related to terrorism. It specifies that any sentence, other than a life sentence, imposed on a person for an offence under sections 83.02 to 83.04 and 83.18 to 83.23 shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising from the same event or series of events, as well as any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time of sentencing. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that individuals who commit terrorist offences are held accountable for their actions and face appropriate consequences. By requiring sentences to be served consecutively, the law sends a message that terrorism is a serious and heinous crime, and that those responsible will face the full force of the law. The provision is also designed to ensure that the public is protected from individuals who have demonstrated a willingness to engage in terrorism. By keeping such individuals in custody for longer periods of time, the law seeks to prevent them from committing further acts of violence or posing a threat to public safety. However, it is worth noting that the provision is not without controversy. Some argue that mandatory consecutive sentencing undermines the principles of proportionality and individualized justice, as it can lead to overly harsh sentences that do not take into account the specific circumstances of each case. In addition, there is a concern that mandatory consecutive sentencing could result in overcrowding in prisons, which can have negative consequences for inmates and staff alike. With limited resources, it may also divert resources away from other critical areas of criminal justice, such as rehabilitation and community reintegration programs. Despite these concerns, it is clear that terrorism represents a threat to public safety and security, and that those who engage in such activities must be held accountable for their actions. Section 83.26 is one tool that the Canadian criminal justice system has to ensure that those responsible for acts of terrorism face appropriate consequences, while also reassuring the public that the government takes this issue seriously. Ultimately, however, it will be up to the courts to balance the goals of accountability and public safety with the principles of fairness and proportionality in each individual case, taking into account the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender.

STRATEGY

Section 83.26 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with sentencing for offences related to terrorism. The provision states that any sentence, other than life imprisonment, imposed on a person for an offense under sections 83.02 to 83.04 and 83.18 to 83.23 should be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person, including other sentences imposed for offenses arising from the same event or series of events. This provision has significant implications for practitioners who deal with cases involving terrorism-related offenses. Strategic Considerations In handling cases involving terrorism-related offenses, practitioners need to carefully consider the implications of section 83.26 of the Criminal Code of Canada. One strategic consideration is the need to carefully assess the evidence and charges against the accused. In cases where multiple offenses arise from the same event or series of events, practitioners may need to consider the strategic implications of a conviction or plea bargain in relation to section 83.26. For example, a plea bargain in one case may have significant implications for sentencing in another case, particularly if the offenses are terrorism-related. Another strategic consideration in dealing with section 83.26 is the need to consider the impact of consecutive sentences on the accused. The provision can result in significantly longer sentences for an accused than might otherwise be imposed for each individual offense. Practitioners need to carefully assess the likely impact of such sentences on the accused, particularly if they are young or have mental health issues. They may need to consult with experts to assess the psychological impact of consecutive sentences on the accused. A further strategic consideration is the need to evaluate the likelihood of success on appeal. If an accused is convicted of multiple terrorism-related offenses and receives consecutive sentences, then an appeal may be an option that is considered. Practitioners need to carefully evaluate the likelihood of success on appeal and the extent to which a successful appeal might mitigate the impact of section 83.26 on the accused. Stratigies that could be employed One strategy that practitioners could employ when dealing with section 83.26 is to negotiate a plea bargain that results in the accused being charged with a reduced number of offenses. By avoiding multiple offenses arising from the same event or series of events, the impact of section 83.26 on the accused can be mitigated. Another strategy could be to seek a joint sentence for all offenses, which would limit the impact of section 83.26 imposed on the accused. Another strategy could be to challenge the constitutionality of section 83.26. Section 83.26 has been challenged in several cases, and the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld its constitutional validity. However, practitioners may identify arguments that have not yet been considered and could seek to challenge the constitutionality of the provision based on new or different facts. In conclusion, practitioners need to carefully consider section 83.26 of the Criminal Code of Canada when dealing with terrorism-related offenses. They need to evaluate the charges against the accused, the impact of consecutive sentences, the likelihood of success on appeal, and the need to mitigate the impact of the provision on the accused. Different strategies such as negotiating a plea bargain, seeking a joint sentence, or challenging the constitutionality of the provision can be employed based on the unique facts of each case.