section 99(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A person who commits an offence under subsection 1 is guilty of an indictable offence and could be imprisoned for up to 10 years with a minimum of one year.

SECTION WORDING

99(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 99; 1995, c. 39, s. 139; 2008, c. 6, s. 10.

EXPLANATION

Section 99(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the act of unlawfully entering or remaining in a dwelling house. It states that any person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence. This means that they will face serious criminal charges, which may result in severe legal penalties if convicted. The maximum sentence for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment, which is a significant penalty. Furthermore, the person will face a minimum punishment of one-year imprisonment. This highlights the seriousness of this offence and emphasizes that the court considers it a serious violation of the law. Subsection (1), referred to in the section, provides that any person who enters or remains in a dwelling house without lawful authority is guilty of an offence. This includes entering a house without permission, remaining in a house after being asked to leave, or occupying an abandoned house. A dwelling house refers to any structure that is intended for human inhabitation, including a house, apartment, or any other dwelling place. The section applies to all persons regardless of their intentions for entering or remaining in the house. It also applies whether the property owner/occupant is present or not at the time of the offence. Overall, section 99(3) reflects the seriousness with which Canadian law views the act of unlawfully entering or remaining in a dwelling house, effectively ensuring that such crimes are punished accordingly.

COMMENTARY

Section 99(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the consequences for an individual who commits an offence under subsection (1). This subsection specifically refers to the act of intentionally causing bodily harm to another person. The punishment for such an offence is severe, with a possible maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a minimum punishment of one year imprisonment. The inclusion of a minimum sentence in this section of the Criminal Code is significant, as it reflects the seriousness of the offence. It serves as a deterrent for potential offenders and highlights society's strong disapproval of violent acts that cause bodily harm. It also ensures that those convicted of such crimes face a significant penalty for their actions, regardless of the specific circumstances of the incident. Given the severity of the punishment outlined in Section 99(3), it is not surprising that this offence is considered an indictable offence. This means that the Crown prosecutor must proceed with formal charges through a trial, rather than through a summary conviction process, which is typically reserved for less serious offences. This indicates that the Canadian legal system views the intentional causing of bodily harm as a serious and heinous crime that merits a thorough and formal investigation and trial. Section 99(3) underscores the Canadian legal system's commitment to protecting the physical safety of its citizens. By criminalizing the intentional causing of bodily harm, the law aims to ensure that all individuals are free from physical harm and can live their lives without fearing violence at the hands of others. This is an important aspect of democracy, as it creates a system in which all citizens can live without fear of violence or harm. One potential criticism of Section 99(3) is that it may disproportionately impact certain populations. Indigenous people, for example, are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system, and may be more likely to face charges of intentional bodily harm. This could be due to a variety of factors, such as systemic racism and marginalization, which may make Indigenous people more vulnerable to violent incidents and more likely to lash out in response. As such, it is important that the Canadian government takes steps to address these underlying issues to reduce the incidence of violent crimes. In conclusion, Section 99(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important part of the Canadian legal system. It highlights the seriousness of violent acts that cause bodily harm and serves as a deterrent to potential offenders. While it may have some potential for disproportionate impact on certain populations, overall, it reflects Canadian society's commitment to protecting the physical safety of its citizens.

STRATEGY

Section 99(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the offence of obstructing justice. This offence carries serious consequences and requires careful consideration and strategic planning when dealing with it. In this article, we will explore some strategic considerations and strategies that could be employed when dealing with section 99(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Strategic Considerations: 1. The seriousness of the offence: The offence of obstructing justice is a serious offence, and the punishment can be severe. It is important to understand the gravity of the situation and the potential consequences before proceeding with any legal action. 2. The strength of the prosecution's case: Before deciding on a strategy, it is crucial to assess the strength of the prosecution's case. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence. Therefore, it is important to identify any weaknesses in the prosecution's case, such as insufficient evidence or procedural errors. 3. The potential for negotiation: Negotiation is often an effective strategy when dealing with obstructing justice charges. It may be possible to negotiate with the prosecution for a lesser sentence or reduced charges in exchange for a guilty plea or cooperation. However, this strategy is only viable if the accused has strong bargaining power. 4. The credibility of the accused: The credibility of the accused is an essential consideration when dealing with obstructing justice charges. The accused must be believable and trustworthy in the eyes of the court. Any past criminal history or dishonest behavior could diminish the credibility of the accused. Strategies: 1. Seek legal representation: Legal representation is crucial when dealing with obstructing justice charges. A skilled defense lawyer can assess the situation, provide legal advice, and develop effective strategies to fight the charges. 2. Develop a strong defense: Developing a strong defense is essential to challenge the prosecution's case. Strategies such as challenging the admissibility of evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, and presenting alternative explanations can weaken the prosecution's case. 3. Cooperate with the prosecution: Cooperating with the prosecution can be an effective negotiating strategy. The accused may be able to negotiate for reduced charges or a lesser sentence in exchange for cooperation, such as providing information or testimony. 4. Present mitigating circumstances: Presenting mitigating circumstances can be an effective strategy to reduce the sentence. Mitigating circumstances, such as the accused's remorse, lack of criminal history, or extenuating circumstances, can persuade the court to show leniency. 5. Appeal the sentence: If the accused is convicted and received an unfavorable sentence, appealing the sentence may be a viable strategy. An appeal can challenge errors made during the trial or point out inconsistencies in the sentencing decision. Conclusion: Dealing with section 99(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires careful consideration and strategic planning. The accused must assess the strength of the prosecution's case, consider negotiating with the prosecution, present effective defense strategies, and explore all possible options to reduce the sentence. Seeking legal representation, cooperating with the prosecution, presenting mitigating circumstances, and appealing the sentence are all viable strategies that can be employed. Ultimately, choosing the right strategy depends on the facts of the case and the specific circumstances of the accused.