INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
It is not a defense to agree or arrange to commit a sexual offense even if the other person is a peace officer or doesnt exist.
SECTION WORDING
172.2(5) It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) (a) that the person with whom the accused agreed or made an arrangement was a peace officer or a person acting under the direction of a peace officer; or (b) that, if the person with whom the accused agreed or made an arrangement was a peace officer or a person acting under the direction of a peace officer, the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) did not exist.
EXPLANATION
Section 172.2(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines that it is not a defence to a charge under paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c) for the accused to claim that the person they were making an agreement or arrangement with was a peace officer, or someone acting under the direction of a peace officer. Furthermore, it is not a defence to claim that the person referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c) did not exist. This section of the Criminal Code is directly related to the offence of luring a child. Paragraph 1(a) makes it illegal to communicate with anyone who the accused believes is under the age of 18 for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence. Paragraph 1(b) prohibits arranging a meeting with someone who the accused believes is under the age of 18 for the purpose of committing a sexual offence. Paragraph 1(c) makes it illegal to agree or make arrangements with someone who the accused believes is under the age of 18 to commit a sexual offence. The purpose of Section 172.2(5) is to prevent individuals from using the defence that they did not know they were making an agreement or arrangement with a peace officer or someone acting under their direction. This is important because it ensures that law enforcement officers can carry out their duties to protect vulnerable individuals, such as children, without fear of being undermined by individuals who may argue that they were tricked into committing a crime. In summary, Section 172.2(5) makes it clear that individuals cannot use the excuse that they did not know they were dealing with a peace officer or that the person referred to in paragraphs 1(a), (b) or (c) did not exist. It is an important provision that helps to protect children and other vulnerable individuals from harm.
COMMENTARY
Section 172.2(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with the offence of luring a child for sexual purposes. This provision states that it is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) of section 172.2 that the person with whom the accused agreed or made an arrangement was a peace officer or a person acting under the direction of a peace officer, or that the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) did not exist. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that individuals who attempt to lure children for sexual purposes cannot use entrapment as a defence. In other words, if a person who is attempting to lure a child for sexual purposes is caught by a peace officer posing as a child or using a fake online profile, the fact that the person was talking to a peace officer or a fictional child is not a defence. The offence is still considered to have been committed. The provision is essential for the protection of children from online sexual exploitation. It prevents offenders from using the excuse that they were misled by a peace officer posing as a child or that they were tricked by a fake online profile. This provision is necessary because, without it, offenders could argue that they were ensnared by law enforcement and did not have an intent to lure a child for sexual purposes. Some may argue that this provision goes against the principles of entrapment and undermines the credibility of law enforcement. However, the provision is not intended to encourage entrapment or undermine the work of law enforcement agencies. Rather, it is intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, which is a serious offence. The provision allows for law enforcement agencies to catch offenders in the act of attempting to commit a crime and prevents them from succeeding in their attempts to exploit children. In conclusion, Section 172.2(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that protects children from online sexual exploitation. It ensures that offenders cannot use entrapment as a defence and must be held accountable for their actions. While some may argue that the provision goes against the principles of entrapment, the provision is necessary to prevent offenders from using deception as an excuse for their actions and to protect vulnerable children from harm.
STRATEGY
Section 172.2(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that removes the possibility of a defense for an accused charged with child exploitation offenses. The provision indicates that it is not a defense to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b), or (c) that the person with whom the accused agreed or made an arrangement was a peace officer or that the person referred to in the charge did not exist. Strategic considerations when dealing with this provision of the Criminal Code of Canada are necessary because of the severity of the charges. Child exploitation offenses are punishable by imprisonment, and if convicted, the offender will have a criminal record that can follow them for the rest of their lives. The nature of the offenses and the lack of defense possibility makes it essential to develop effective legal strategies. One strategy that could be employed when dealing with section 172.2(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a constitutional challenge. This strategy seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the provision, arguing that it infringes on the accused's right to a fair trial. This approach could be based on the argument that the provision removes the possibility of a defense, and therefore, the accused is not receiving a fair trial. Lawyers can argue that any law that infringes on an accused's right to a fair trial is unconstitutional. Another strategy that could be employed is based on procedural defenses. As section 172.2(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada removes the possibility of the defense, accused's lawyers may employ technical defenses to acquit their clients. The defense could argue that the Crown has not met the standards of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense in question. This strategy can be based on an attack on the Crown's evidence or cross-examination of witnesses, arguing that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof. If the defense can succeed in sowing doubt in the Crown's case, this could result in an acquittal. A third strategy that could be employed is a plea bargain. This would involve the accused and their lawyers negotiating with the prosecution for a lesser charge or a reduced sentence. A plea bargain could be helpful in cases where the evidence against the accused is strong, and a conviction is likely. In such cases, a plea bargain could help reduce the severity of the consequences for the accused. Additionally, accused's counsel could incorporate the "reasonable steps" defense in their legal strategies. This concept stipulates that it is a defense when the accused took reasonable steps to avoid committing the offense. The idea is relevant to those individuals who engaged in behavior online that they did not KNOW was illegal. Accused's counsel could argue that their client did take a reasonable step to avoid committing the offence. In conclusion, when dealing with section 172.2(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada, several strategic considerations can be employed. These include procedural defenses, constitutional challenges, plea bargains, and reasonable steps defenses. Lawyers handling such cases should work tirelessly to represent their clients and build a convincing case that could result in an acquittal or a softer penalty. In any case, it is essential to approach the matter strategically, considering all possible legal options.