Criminal Code of Canada - section 344(3) - Subsequent convictions only

section 344(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The sequence of convictions is the only relevant factor for subsection (2), regardless of the order of commission of offences or convictions.

SECTION WORDING

344(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.

EXPLANATION

Section 344(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the sentencing of offenders who have been convicted of multiple offenses. The section outlines that when sentencing an offender for multiple offenses, only the sequence of convictions should be considered, regardless of the sequence in which the offenses were committed or whether any offense occurred before or after any conviction. This means that if an individual is found guilty of multiple offenses and has a history of previous convictions, the judge must only consider the order in which these convictions occurred when determining the sentence for the current offenses. The judge cannot take into account the order in which the offenses were committed or whether any offense occurred before or after any conviction. The purpose of this section is to ensure that an offender is sentenced fairly and justly, based solely on the number and order of their previous convictions. It prevents the judge from unfairly punishing an offender by taking into account unrelated or potentially less severe offenses that may have been committed at another point in time. Overall, Section 344(3) is an important provision within the Criminal Code of Canada as it helps to ensure that offenders are sentenced in a fair and just manner that is free from bias and prejudice.

COMMENTARY

Section 344(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the sequencing of convictions and offences. The section is quite clear that when considering the order of convictions of an accused person, only the sequence of convictions should be taken into account, irrespective of whether the offences occurred before or after any of the convictions. In other words, the section is meant to prevent the use of prior convictions to create an inference of the guilt of an accused person in relation to a new offence. The aim of this section is to ensure that an accused receives a fair trial and that their guilt or innocence of a particular offence is based on the facts of the case. It is meant to prevent the use of previous convictions as a means of prejudicing the accused in the eyes of the court. This section also serves the purpose of promoting the principles of fairness and equity in the administration of criminal law. It ensures that the rights of an accused person are protected and that they are not prejudiced by previous convictions when facing new charges. On the other hand, it is important to note that this section does not mean that previous convictions cannot be taken into account at all. In certain circumstances, previous convictions may be relevant to the current charge and may be admitted as evidence. For example, the previous criminal behaviour of an accused person may be relevant in determining the level of punishment that should be imposed if they are found guilty of a new offence. In the same vein, it is also important to consider the nature and circumstances of the previous convictions. This is because certain types of previous convictions may be more relevant to the current offence than others. For example, if an accused person has previously been convicted of an offence that is similar to the one they are currently charged with, it may be more relevant to the current charge than a conviction for a completely unrelated offence. Overall, Section 344(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a vital role in ensuring that accused persons are not unfairly prejudiced by their previous convictions when facing new charges. It helps to promote the principles of fairness and equity in the administration of criminal law and ensures that an accused person is judged solely on the evidence related to the current charge. While previous convictions may be relevant in certain circumstances, this section ensures that they are not used to create an inference of guilt in the absence of other evidence.

STRATEGY

Section 344(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the admissibility of evidence of previous convictions in criminal proceedings. The section provides that when considering evidence of prior convictions in a trial, the only relevant question is the order in which the convictions were obtained. The timing and sequence of the commission of offences or the occurrence of any offence before or after a conviction should not be considered. This section has significant strategic considerations for both the prosecution and the defense in criminal trials. One strategy for the prosecution is to use evidence of previous convictions to establish a pattern of behavior by the accused. This can be particularly useful in cases where the accused has committed similar offenses in the past. For instance, if an individual has been convicted of theft in the past, and is now being charged with theft again, the prosecution could use evidence of the previous conviction to argue that the accused has a pattern of stealing. The prosecution can also use evidence of past convictions to undermine the credibility of the accused. This strategy is particularly useful when the accused is testifying in their defense. The prosecution can use past convictions to show that the accused has a history of dishonesty or criminal activity, making their testimony less credible. On the other hand, the defense may seek to limit the admissibility of previous convictions. A common strategy is to argue that the previous convictions are too old or too dissimilar to be relevant in the current trial. Additionally, the accused may argue that the previous convictions are unfairly prejudicial and could create bias in the minds of the jurors. Alternatively, if the defense cannot exclude the evidence of previous convictions, they may try to minimize its impact on the trial. This could involve accepting that some previous convictions exist, but arguing that they have been rehabilitated and should not be used to define their current character. Another strategy that could be employed by the defense is to argue that the previous convictions were obtained unfairly or through a flawed judicial process. For instance, if the previous conviction involved an inadequate defense, the accused may argue that the conviction should not be admissible. In conclusion, the strategic considerations when dealing with section 344(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada are complex and depend on the circumstances of each case. The prosecution will typically look to use previous convictions to establish patterns and undermine the credibility of the accused, while the defense will look to limit the admissibility of previous convictions or minimize their impact on the trial. Legal representation on both sides need to navigate these considerations carefully, in order to ensure a fair and just trial for all involved.