INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section outlines the minimum punishments for committing an offence under section 253 or 254 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
SECTION WORDING
255(1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, (a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely, (i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000, (ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than 30 days, and (iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than 120 days; (b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and (c) if the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.
EXPLANATION
Section 255(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the punishment of offences related to impaired driving. The section states that anyone who commits an offence under sections 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence, which means that it is a serious offence, or an offence punishable on summary conviction, which means that it is a less severe offence. Regardless of how the offence is classified, the offender is subject to a minimum punishment. For a first offence, there is a minimum fine of $1,000; for a second offence, there is a minimum imprisonment of 30 days; and for each subsequent offence, the minimum imprisonment is 120 days. It is important to note that these are the minimum punishments, and a judge can impose a higher sentence based on the circumstances of the case. If the offence is prosecuted by indictment, the offender can face imprisonment for up to five years. If the offence is punishable on summary conviction, the maximum imprisonment is 18 months. The purpose of this section is to deter people from driving while impaired by imposing strict punishments. Impaired driving is a serious crime that can have devastating consequences, including injury and death. As such, the Canadian justice system takes a strong stance against it, and this section helps to ensure that offenders are held accountable for their actions.
COMMENTARY
Section 255(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that sets out the minimum punishment for individuals who commit offences under sections 253 or 254 of the Code. These sections relate to impaired driving and over 80 offences, respectively, which are considered to be serious offences that have the potential to cause harm to individuals and the broader public. The section specifies that individuals who commit these offences can be charged either with an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction, depending on the seriousness of the offence and other factors. The section further provides for the minimum punishment that an individual must receive if they are found guilty of such an offence. The punishment varies depending on the number of previous offences committed, with the punishment for repeat offenders getting progressively more severe. Section 255(1) is an important provision because it sends a clear message that impaired driving and over 80 offences will not be tolerated in society, and that offenders will be held accountable for their actions. The minimum punishments specified in the section provide a strong deterrent to potential offenders, as they serve as a reminder of the serious consequences that can result from committing such offences. However, it is important to note that the minimum punishments established in the section are just that - minimum punishments. Judges have the discretion to impose more severe punishments if they see fit, taking into account the particular circumstances of each case. While the use of judicial discretion is important in ensuring that individual circumstances are taken into account, it is also necessary to ensure that offenders are held accountable for their actions and that the punishment fits the severity of the offence. Overall, section 255(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves an important role in ensuring that impaired driving and over 80 offences are treated seriously, and that offenders are held accountable for their actions. The minimum punishments specified in the section provide a strong deterrent to potential offenders, while also recognizing the seriousness of the offence. While some may argue that these punishments should be even more severe, it is important for the criminal justice system to strike the right balance between punishment and rehabilitation, in order to ensure that offenders are held accountable for their actions while still being given the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.
STRATEGY
Section 255(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada includes mandatory minimum punishments for those who commit offences under section 253 or 254, which pertain to impaired driving and refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test, respectively. These mandatory minimums have been subject to significant debate and controversy, particularly with regards to the impact they have on marginalized groups and the fairness of their implementation. As such, when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, it is important to consider both legal and ethical implications and employ strategic approaches that are effective, just, and equitable. One key strategic consideration is to understand the context in which the offence was committed. Impaired driving can stem from a range of factors, including addiction, mental health issues, or lack of access to alternative transportation options in more remote or underserved areas. By examining the circumstances surrounding the offence, lawyers and legal professionals can make a stronger case for reduced charges or alternative sentencing that recognizes the root causes of the behaviour. This may involve arguing for rehabilitation programs or other supportive interventions, rather than simply imposing punitive measures. A second strategic consideration is working within the legal system to challenge the constitutionality of mandatory minimums. Critics have argued that mandatory minimums violate judicial independence and limit the ability of judges to make decisions that are appropriate for the specifics of each case. This can be particularly problematic for marginalized groups, who may be disproportionately impacted by mandatory minimums due to systemic inequalities in the justice system. Legal professionals can advocate for the repeal or amendment of mandatory minimums at the legislative level, or work to challenge their application in individual cases based on Charter rights or judicial discretion. Thirdly, legal professionals can work to educate the public and raise awareness about the broader implications of mandatory minimums. This may involve engaging in public discourse, publishing articles or op-eds, or speaking out about the ways in which mandatory minimums can perpetuate inequality and injustice. Through these efforts, legal professionals can help shift the public narrative around impaired driving and other related offences, encouraging a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of the issue. In conclusion, dealing with Section 255(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires strategic considerations that balance legal and ethical implications. Legal professionals can employ various strategies, including examining the context of the offence, challenging the constitutionality of mandatory minimums, and educating the public about the broader implications of these laws. By adopting a strategic and nuanced approach to addressing impaired driving offences, lawyers and legal professionals can work towards a more just and equitable justice system for all.