INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section allows a court to prohibit an offender from operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment for a specified period of time if they have committed certain offenses with such vehicles.
SECTION WORDING
259(2) If an offender is convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offence under section 220, 221, 236, 249, 249.1, 250, 251 or 252 or any of subsections 255(2) to (3.2) committed by means of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, the court that sentences the offender may, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence, make an order prohibiting the offender from operating a motor vehicle on any street, road, highway or other public place, or from operating a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be, (a) during any period that the court considers proper, if the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for life in respect of that offence; (a.1) during any period that the court considers proper, plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, if the offender is liable to imprisonment for life in respect of that offence and if the sentence imposed is other than imprisonment for life; (b) during any period not exceeding ten years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, if the offender is liable to imprisonment for more than five years but less than life in respect of that offence; and (c) during any period not exceeding three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, in any other case.
EXPLANATION
Section 259(2) is a provision in the Canadian Criminal Code that enables courts to prohibit offenders convicted or discharged under certain sections of the Code from operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment for a specified period. The prohibited sections include offenses committed by means of any of these modes of transport such as impaired driving, dangerous driving, and criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death. The duration of the prohibition order depends on the seriousness of the offense and the length of the sentence imposed. For instance, if an offender is sentenced to life imprisonment for an offense under any of the mentioned sections, the court can prohibit them from operating any mode of transport indefinitely or for a period that the court considers suitable. If the offender receives a sentence of imprisonment other than life, the period of prohibition can be extended to the length of the sentence plus any other time determined as appropriate by the court. The provision serves to protect the public from repeat offenders who may pose a risk if allowed to operate motor vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or railway equipment. It is an additional punishment to deter offenders from committing similar offenses in the future and to also prevent them from causing harm through the use of these modes of transport. The section is an example of the Criminal Code's efforts to promote public safety and minimize harm caused by dangerous driving, impaired driving, and other offenses committed by means of modes of transportation.
COMMENTARY
Section 259(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that allows the court to impose a driving prohibition order as an additional punishment for a range of serious criminal offenses committed through the use of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment. This provision recognizes that reckless or dangerous driving can have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to public safety, and that imposing a driving prohibition order can be an effective way to deter offenders from reoffending and protect the public. The provision applies to a specific list of offenses, including impaired driving causing bodily harm or death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm or death. These offenses are among the most serious driving-related offenses and often result in significant harm or loss of life to victims and their families. Under the provision, the court has broad discretion to impose a driving prohibition order of varying lengths depending on the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case. If the offender is sentenced to life imprisonment for the offense, the court may impose a lifetime driving prohibition order. If the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a term shorter than life, the court may impose a driving prohibition order for any period up to ten years, depending on the length of the prison sentence imposed. For offenses carrying a maximum sentence of less than five years imprisonment, the court may impose a driving prohibition order for any period up to three years, again depending on the length of the prison sentence imposed. It is worth noting that driving prohibition orders imposed under this provision are not automatic and are left to the discretion of the court. Courts must consider a number of factors when deciding whether to impose a driving prohibition order, including the seriousness of the offense, the offender's driving history, their willingness to change their behavior, and the risk they pose to public safety. In some cases, the court may find that a driving prohibition order is not necessary or appropriate, and instead impose other penalties and conditions, such as fines, community service, or probation. Overall, Section 259(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important tool for the courts to address driving-related offenses and protect public safety. It recognizes the gravity of these offenses and provides the courts with a range of options to impose appropriate punishments and deter offenders from reoffending.
STRATEGY
Strategic considerations when dealing with Section 259(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada include balancing the need to protect public safety with the offender's rights, considering the specific circumstances of the offence and offender, and ensuring that any orders made are reasonable and necessary. One strategy that could be employed is to argue for a lesser term of prohibition or for certain exceptions to be made. For example, if the offender's livelihood depends on being able to operate a vehicle, some exceptions could be made to allow for work-related driving. Additionally, it may be possible to negotiate a plea deal that results in a lesser sentence or a shorter term of prohibition. Another strategy could be to obtain a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the offender in order to determine whether they are a risk to public safety and to tailor any orders accordingly. If the offender is deemed to be a low risk, it may be possible to argue for a shorter term of prohibition or for work-related exceptions to be made. It is also important to ensure that any orders made are feasible and enforceable. For example, if an offender is ordered not to operate a vehicle, but has no other means of transportation, this may be difficult to enforce and could lead to unintended consequences, such as the person losing their job. Overall, the key strategy when dealing with Section 259(2) is to balance the need to protect public safety with the offender's rights, while also ensuring that any orders made are reasonable and necessary in the specific circumstances of the offence and offender.