|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 2 of the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOOMS, our Constitution reads as follows: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms (a) Freedom of conscience and religion; (b) Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) Freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) Freedom of association Section 24 (1) of the CANADIAN CHATER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, reads as follows: 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy, as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. Asserting Your Rights Traffic stops: 1. You only are required to give documentation for the vehicle and your driver's license nothing else. 2. You are not required to give any other information or answer any questions without consulting your lawyer. 3. Your vehicle cannot be searched without probable cause and you do not have to consent to any type of search. 4. If you have been arrested or detained you do not have to consent to any impoundment of your property and have the right to secure your property. 5. If you have not been told you are being detained and given a reason for this you have the right to leave. Being Stopped on the Street by Police If you are stopped by police outside your home or your car and you are not doing anything contrary to law, you are under No legal obligation to: 1. answer anyquestions as to your name and address, or 2. justify why you are where you are, or 3. produce identification or prove means of supporting yourself, or 4. go with police for further investigation or questioning UNLESS you are placed under arrest. See Section 7 of the Charter of Rights, s 7: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person..." CRIMINAL LAW - OBSTRUCT POLICE. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - IDENTITY - Duty to identify self. R. v. Legault (1998) B.C.J. No. 1309, ADGN/98-970 British Columbia Supreme Court, Lamperson J. May 25, 1998 Absent some provision to the contrary, a person must only identify himself or herself to a police officer, if that police officer is in a position to arrest that person or issue some form of summons to him/her. Otherwise there is no general duty to identify oneself to a police officer. Charge of obstuction reversed
Canadians are concerned about the growing and pervasive threat of organized crime in their communities. In response to their concerns, and in cooperation with the provinces and territories, the Government of Canada introduced anti-organized crime legislation that has been adopted by both Houses of Parliament. This legislation strengthens the ability of law enforcement officers and prosecutors to fight organized crime. Bill C-24 will amend the Criminal Code to: 1. introduce three new offences and tough sentences that target various degrees of involvement with criminal organizations; 2. improve the protection of people who play a role in the justice system from intimidation against them and their families; 3. simplify the current definition of "criminal organization" in the Criminal Code; 4. broaden powers of law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds of crime and the profits of criminal organizations and seize property that was used in a crime; and 5. establish an accountability process to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit certain acts that would otherwise be considered illegal during the course of a criminal investigation. Making participation in a criminal organization an offence By making participation in a criminal organization a criminal offence, the new legislation represents an effective and legally sound approach to the issue of membership in organized crime. The provisions can target anyone (not just members) who knowingly becomes involved in activities that further an organization's criminal objectives. The new offences will target anyone who: 1. participates in or contributes to activities that help a criminal organization achieve its criminal objectives. This offence can include, for example, people who recruit others to join a criminal organization or who facilitate illegal transactions of a criminal organization. The maximum penalty for this offence will be five years; 2. is involved in committing indictable offences for the benefit of criminal organizations. The maximum penalty for this offence will be 14 years; and 3. is a leader of a criminal organization. These persons will include anyone within the criminal organization who instructs another person to become involved in a criminal offence. This offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Unlike other types of penalty provisions that require offenders to serve only a third of their sentence before becoming eligible to apply for parole, offenders convicted of criminal organization offences will have to serve at least half of their term before they are eligible to apply for parole, unless the court directs otherwise. Protecting people in the criminal justice system from intimidation Under the new provisions, it will be an offence to use violence to intimidate people involved in the justice system or a member of their family with the intention of impeding the administration of justice. Justice participants include witnesses, jurors, police, prosecutors, prison guards, judges, members of the media, and members of Parliament and Senators. The legislation will also contain provisions to protect the privacy of jurors. The offence of intimidation of a justice system participant will be punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. Additionally, the killing of any justice system participant while intimidating or attempting to intimidate that person will be first-degree murder and will carry an automatic sentence of life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years. Simplifying the definition of "criminal organization" The new anti-organized crime legislation will simplifies the definition of criminal organization, and will give police and prosecutors the flexibility they need to go after more criminal organizations and those who choose to get involved in their activities. The definition will: 1. reduce the number of people required to constitute a criminal organization from five to three. This brings Canadian legislation into line with legislation used in other countries; 2. no longer require prosecutors to demonstrate that members of the criminal organization were involved in committing crimes for the criminal organization in the last five years. Instead, prosecutors will be able to focus on the evidence relevant to the crimes for which the offender is on trial; and 3. broaden the scope of the offences which define a criminal organization (currently limited to indictable offences punishable by five or more years) to all serious crimes, including "signature" crimes such as prostitution and gambling. Seizure, freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime Current laws allow for the seizure, freezing and confiscation of proceeds of those crimes defined as "enterprise crimes," such as firearms trafficking, stock market fraud and arson. The amendments expand the proceeds of crime provisions so that they apply to most indictable offences. With this legislation, Canadian authorities can enforce foreign criminal confiscation orders involving proceeds of crime while protecting innocent third party interests. Bill C-24 ensures that Canada can play an active role in the global effort to combat organized crime, and allows Canada to fulfill its obligations under international conventions that it has signed, including the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and the Council of Europe's Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime. Currently, the law provides for the forfeiture of property only if it was especially built or modified in order to carry out the crime. Under the amendments, forfeiture of offence-related property applies, for the first time, to all property (for example, houses or other real estate, vehicles or equipment) that was used in committing the crime. To ensure that the provisions are applied fairly, the law requires that a test be applied so that the punishment of forfeiture would not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Protecting law enforcement officers Police officers investigating crimes such as people-smuggling, smuggling of contraband such as liquor, tobacco and firearms, hate crimes, international terrorism and environmental crimes must use a variety of techniques, including, on occasion, committing offences to infiltrate, destabilize and dismantle these operations. The new legislative provisions were developed in consultation with provinces, territories and representatives from the law enforcement and legal communities. They establish an accountability process that establishes immunity from criminal prosecution for law enforcement officers when they commit certain acts that would otherwise be considered illegal during the course of criminal investigations. The provisions: 1. do not give "blanket" immunity to police for any criminal conduct; require that individual officers must be personally designated by the relevant minister in order to benefit from the limited immunity; 2. clearly set out the actions for which immunity will not be granted. There will be no immunity for intentionally or recklessly causing death or bodily harm, sexual offences or deliberately obstructing the course of justice; and 3. establish an accountability process that will require, among other things, that the Solicitor General of Canada, provincial ministers responsible for policing and federal ministers responsible for the enforcement of other federal statutes, release an annual report on how often officers under their authority engaged in such acts. In April 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v Campbell and Shirose declared that police were not immune from criminal liability for criminal activities committed in the course of an investigation. The Court also noted that it was for Parliament to determine if police should benefit from some kind of public interest immunity and, to set out laws that clearly showed the circumstances in which police would be protected from criminal liability. For any problems with the page contact webmaster 
|