INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section mandates that an offender convicted or discharged of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death will be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for varying periods of time depending on the number of offences committed and any period to which they are sentenced to imprisonment.
SECTION WORDING
259(3.2) When an offender is convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offence committed under section 249.3 or subsection 249.4(3), the court that sentences the offender shall, 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 (a) for a first offence, during a period of not more than ten years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year; (b) for a second offence, during a period of not more than ten years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than two years; and (c) for each subsequent offence, during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.
EXPLANATION
Section 259(3.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the mandatory sentencing requirement for individuals convicted of impaired driving offences. When an individual is found guilty of an offence committed under section 249.3 or subsection 249.4(3) of the Code, the court is required to impose an order prohibiting the offender from operating a motor vehicle on any public road during a specified period. For first-time offenders, the ban will be for a minimum of one year but can last as long as ten years plus the length of any prison sentence. For second-time offenders, the ban is increased to a minimum of two years but can also last up to ten years plus the length of a prison sentence. Subsequent offences will carry a mandatory minimum prohibition of three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. The rationale behind this mandatory sentencing requirement is to provide a strong deterrent to those who may be considering driving while impaired. By removing the privilege of driving on public roads, offenders may be less likely to reoffend while serving their ban. This section of the Criminal Code of Canada also serves to protect the public from dangerous and potentially deadly situations that could arise from impaired driving. Overall, section 259(3.2) illustrates the significant legal repercussions that come with impaired driving offences in Canada. It is a reminder of the importance of responsible driving and the consequences that can result from making the decision to drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
COMMENTARY
Section 259(3.2) of the Canadian Criminal Code serves as a deterrent against impaired driving offences. It aims to protect the public from the risks and consequences associated with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This section of the code mandates an additional punishment when an offender is convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offence committed under section 249.3 or subsection 249.4(3). The court is required to make an order that prohibits the offender from operating a motor vehicle on any street, road, highway, or other public place. The duration of the prohibition period depends on the number of prior convictions a person has. For a first offence, the person is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for a period of not more than ten years plus any period to which they are sentenced to imprisonment and not less than one year. For a second offence, the person is prohibited for not more than ten years plus any period of imprisonment and not less than two years. For each subsequent offence, the prohibition period is not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. This provision is a critical component of Canada's impaired driving laws as it seeks to reduce recidivism among offenders. It makes it difficult for repeat impaired driving offenders to operate a vehicle on public roads and highways and ensures public safety. It also offers a means for rehabilitation by allowing offenders to seek treatment and address their substance abuse problems without the temptation of operating a motor vehicle. However, there are limitations to this provision. Firstly, it is difficult to monitor a person's compliance with the prohibition order as they may still operate vehicles without being detected. Secondly, the law does not prevent offenders from owning a vehicle and hiring drivers to operate them, which could create a loophole in the law. Lastly, this provision does not address the underlying issues that lead to impaired driving, such as addiction and substance abuse. There is a need for integrated solutions that address these issues while considering the implications and effectiveness of current laws. In conclusion, section 259(3.2) of the Canadian Criminal Code is a necessary provision that aims to prevent impaired driving offences and protect public safety. It provides punishments for offenders involved in impaired driving offences and encourages rehabilitation through the prohibition of operating a motor vehicle. However, addressing the underlying issues that lead to impaired driving is also necessary, and more comprehensive laws could help reduce recidivism and improve road safety further.
STRATEGY
Section 259(3.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is aimed at deterring individuals from repeating impaired driving offenses. This section allows the court to impose a driving prohibition order along with any other punishments given for the offense. These driving prohibition orders can pose challenges for the offender in situations where a motor vehicle is required for employment or daily living. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, some strategic considerations arise. Firstly, it is important to understand the severity of driving prohibition orders and their implications on the offender's life. The offender's personal circumstances, such as their employment, family situation, and any medical requirements, can impact the duration of the driving prohibition order. Secondly, lawyers representing the offender should consider the evidence available in the case and the strength of the prosecution's argument. The offender's defense should scrutinize any inconsistencies in the evidence that could weaken the prosecution's case. In doing so, the defense could reduce the likelihood of a driving prohibition order being imposed. Another strategic consideration is the nature of the offense. Section 249.3 and subsection 249.4(3) are impaired driving-related offenses that are taken seriously by the court. Therefore, offenders convicted of such offenses need to plan a strong defense strategy to avoid significant consequences. The defense could argue that the offender's actions were not premeditated and that they were regretful for what happened. This defense strategy could help reduce the amount of time the court imposes as part of the driving prohibition order. One strategy that could be employed is to negotiate with the prosecution to reduce the driving ban ordered. The Defense could negotiate with the prosecutor to reduce the duration of the driving prohibition order in exchange for a guilty plea or agreeing to go to an alcohol or drug treatment program. Undertaking a voluntary treatment program could show the court the offender's willingness to change their behavior. The defense could also negotiate for a restricted driver's license, where the offender could only drive for specific purposes, such as work. In conclusion, Section 259(3.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an essential tool for deterring impaired driving offenses. When dealing with this section, strategic considerations are necessary to achieve the best possible outcome for the offender. Understanding the implications of the driving prohibition orders and evaluating the strength of the prosecution's case, negotiating with the prosecutor, and planning a defense strategy can make a significant impact in reducing the burden imposed on the offender.