INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
85(4) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2).
Section 85(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that outlines the sentence imposed on a person for an offense under subsections (1) or (2). This section is related to offenses involving the use of a firearm, including possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose or carrying a concealed weapon. The provision mandates that a sentence imposed on a person for an offense under this section shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offense arising out of the same event or series of events. Furthermore, the sentence shall also be served consecutively to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offense under subsections (1) or (2). The purpose of this provision is to emphasize the severity of offenses involving the use of firearms. By imposing consecutive sentences, the courts send a strong message to offenders that the use of firearms in criminal activities will not be tolerated. This provision also ensures that offenders are held accountable for their actions and serves as a deterrent to those who may be considering using firearms in the commission of crimes. In summary, section 85(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that emphasizes the seriousness of using firearms in criminal activities. The provision ensures that offenders are held accountable for their actions and serves as a deterrent to others who may be considering this type of offense.
Section 85(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the sentencing of individuals who commit offences related to terrorism. Specifically, this section states that any sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) must be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed. This provision is significant because it recognizes the severity of terrorism and ensures that those who commit such acts are held accountable for their actions. By requiring consecutive sentences, the law ensures that individuals who commit terrorist acts cannot escape or minimize the consequences of their actions. Additionally, this section of the Criminal Code serves as a deterrent against future terrorist actions. The harshness of the punishment serves as a warning to potential offenders of the consequences they would face if they were to commit an act of terrorism. However, there are also concerns raised about the constitutionality of this section. Some argue that it goes against the principles of proportionality and fairness in sentencing, as consecutive sentences can result in an excessively long sentence for an individual. This can be especially problematic in cases where an individual may have committed a lesser offence in addition to a terrorism-related offence. Another criticism of this provision is that it may lead to over-incarceration. Given that individuals who commit terrorism-related offences are often subject to lengthy sentences, there can be a danger of overcrowding in prisons. This is particularly relevant in the Canadian context, where there are persistent concerns about the state of the prison system. Overall, while there are valid concerns raised about the constitutionality and practicality of this section, it remains an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada. It ensures that those who commit acts of terrorism are held accountable for their actions, and that the severity of these crimes is recognized by the justice system. At the same time, ongoing examination and critique of this provision is important to ensure that it remains fair and effective in the pursuit of justice.
Section 85(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a critical role in sentencing individuals who have committed serious offences involving guns, explosives, or other lethal weapons. It is designed to ensure that an offender is punished for a specific offence and that they bear the full weight of the consequences of their actions. The provision also serves as a deterrent to individuals considering committing such crimes, given the significant consequences that could be imposed by the court. When dealing with section 85(4), there are several strategic considerations that lawyers and defendants need to take into account. Firstly, it is vital to understand the offence(s) committed, the circumstances surrounding the incidents, and the potential sentences that could be imposed under the Criminal Code. This understanding is essential in crafting a defense or mitigation strategy that can persuade the judge to exercise their discretion in the favor of the defendant. In addition, it is important to be aware of the precedents that have been established in other cases involving similar offences. Studying these cases and understanding the principles behind the judges' decision-making can provide valuable insights into the strategies that are likely to succeed, the types of evidence that are considered persuasive, and the mitigating factors that may be taken into account. One of the key strategies that can be employed when dealing with section 85(4) is to challenge the constitutionality of the provision. This could involve arguing that the provision violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly in cases where an offender is being punished for multiple offences arising from the same event or series of events. If successful, such a challenge could result in the judge imposing a sentence that is less severe or that does not include consecutive sentencing. Another strategy that could be employed is to focus on the mitigating factors that may exist in the case and emphasize them during sentencing. This could include factors such as the offender's mental state at the time of the offense, their lack of criminal history, remorse, and efforts to make amends for their actions. By emphasizing these factors, the defendant and their legal team could persuade the judge to impose a sentence that is less severe or that takes into account the defendant's rehabilitation potential. A third strategy that could be employed when dealing with section 85(4) is to negotiate a plea agreement with the prosecution. This could involve agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence or for the prosecutor's agreement not to pursue consecutive sentencing. However, such agreements must be carefully crafted to ensure that they are in the best interests of the defendant and that they do not inadvertently waive any of their rights. In conclusion, section 85(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada presents significant strategic challenges for lawyers and defendants. However, by understanding the relevant case law, focusing on mitigating factors, and negotiating effectively with the prosecution, it may be possible to achieve a more favorable outcome for the defendant. It is important for defendants and their legal teams to approach section 85(4) with careful consideration and a thorough understanding of the relevant principles and rules.