Criminal Defence Law Blog
Acting on numerous complaints 72 people (mainly men) were arrested last Friday and charged with gross indecency and engaging in sexual activity in Marie Curtis Park. It is being decried as the homophobic old school morality. Are they suggesting that the police would not similarly act on numerous complaints of heterosexual gross indecency and sexual activity in public at all times of the day?
REPEALING THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF ANAL INTERCOURSE – Although previously ruled unconstitutional it remains in the criminal code. Here’s the problem: “Section 159 of the Criminal Code currently says that anyone who engages in anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence — facing up to 10 years in prison — or an offence punishable on summary conviction. There are exceptions for heterosexual married couples and consenting adults of either sex over the age of 18, so long as there are only two of them and the activity takes place without anyone else in the room. The age of consent for heterosexual sex is 16 years of age, meaning that a common sexual act between a young gay couple is criminalized while a different sexual act engaged in by a straight couple of the same age is not.
The law currently says anyone who engages in anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence — facing up to 10 years in prison — or an offence punishable on summary conviction
Source: Ottawa to repeal section of Criminal Code on anal intercourse – The Globe and Mail
The new regulations will come into full effect on Jan. 1, 2017. They feature an explicit ban on the use of race or place (i.e., being in a “high-crime area”) as a stand-alone justification for carding. Officers will be required to inform individuals that they have the right to know why they are being stopped and whether they have a legal obligation to speak with the officer(s). The regulations will also require officers to provide a receipt of the interaction, and they mandate that officers indicate the perceived racial background of the civilians they card.
Source: Speaker’s Corner: Carding regulations will shape legal landscape
PM Harper abolished pardons and replaced them with “record suspensions”, quadrupled the fees to apply and almost doubled the waiting period before application, made it all retroactive and effectively trashed all pardon applications in process. The retroactive aspect and increased waiting period is being challenged as unconstitutional. The Liberal government is opposing this. We’ll wait for the result of this first challenge.
IMPLIED THREAT OF VIOLENCE – You may not have made any actual verbal threat but that doesn’t mean there was no threat of violence. It may be found in the nature of the offence. “No actual victim was threatened or realized. There was no robbery, violence or actual attempted violence. Nonetheless, the court held that violence is inherent in robbery and thus there was an implied threat. This approach is consistent with an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal where despite a lack of actual threats or violence the court accepted the inherent and implied threats involved in the conduct of the accused involving contact with his wife in breach of recognizance conditions.”
The purpose of s. 109 of the Criminal Code and the nature of breaking and entering justified the lifetime weapons prohibition in the accused’s sentence.
Source: Mack’s Criminal Law Bulletin – Weapons Prohibitions | WestlawNext Canada Portal
A couple of decades ago our government closed local jails and opened superjails. There has been an ongoing seemingly endless labour dispute which results in many lockdowns. “The facility can be locked down simply because one jail guard calls in sick. The inmate is holed up with another inmate not of his choosing, confinement for 24 hours a day, caused by lack of jail staff, was degrading and an outrage to standards of decency.”
THE SKYPE SEX SCAM – This is posted as a PSA. Be aware and be careful out there.
Arab men are being targeted by blackmailers who trick them into them masturbating on webcams – then make them pay for it.
Source: The Skype sex scam – a fortune built on shame – BBC News
Are Judges arrogant? Sometimes. Is it a problem? Well, when it occurs it is. The bottom line is: ” judicial arrogance is wrong. It is a wrong that gets committed too often and called out too little. Judges need to strive for humility – to recognize it as a virtue.” The article is an interesting consideration of it.
By: Alice Woolley PDF Version: The Problem of Judicial Arrogance In her remarkable new book Life Sentence (Doubleday Canada, 2016), Christie Blatchford describes the Canadian judiciary as “unelecte…
CROWN’S CROSS-EXAMINATION LEADS TO RETRIAL – I believe this may be the third case recently. It’s what happens when it’s forgotten that “Crown counsel have an obligation not simply to secure convictions but to ensure that justice is done, and so they are rightly held to a high standard of conduct,”. A FAIR trial is the hallmark of a proper prosecution.
