INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Any disability imposed under this section is removed if a conviction is set aside by competent authority.
SECTION WORDING
750(6) Where a conviction is set aside by competent authority, any disability imposed by this section is removed.
EXPLANATION
Section 750(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays an important role in the rehabilitation of offenders who have been convicted of a criminal offence. Under this section, if a conviction is set aside by a competent authority, any disability imposed on the offender is removed. This section is particularly relevant in cases where an offender has been convicted of a serious offence, such as a violent crime, and has served their sentence. Once the sentence is completed, the offender may continue to face various disabilities, such as restrictions on their ability to vote, travel, or obtain licenses for certain professions. These disabilities may continue to impact the offender's life long after they have completed their sentence, making it difficult for them to reintegrate into society. However, if a conviction is set aside by a competent authority, such as an appellate court, any disabilities imposed as a result of the conviction are also removed. This means that the offender can regain their right to vote, travel freely, and pursue their chosen profession without any additional barriers. Overall, Section 750(6) is an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that allows offenders to move on from their past mistakes and become productive members of society once again. By removing the disabilities associated with a criminal conviction, this section encourages rehabilitation and reintegration, ultimately contributing to safer communities.
COMMENTARY
Section 750(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that seeks to ensure that persons who have had their criminal convictions set aside by competent authority are not unfairly penalized for crimes they did not commit. The provision states that any disability imposed by this section is removed once a conviction is set aside, meaning that the individual in question would not be subject to the same restrictions and limitations as they would have been had they remained convicted. The disability referred to in section 750(6) primarily concerns restrictions on the right to possess or acquire firearms. This disability, which is imposed on anyone who is convicted of certain criminal offenses, is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of those who pose a danger to themselves or others due to their criminal history. The reasoning behind these restrictions is that people who have been convicted of certain crimes, such as violent offenses and some drug-related offenses, are more likely to engage in further criminal activities involving firearms. By restricting their ability to possess or acquire firearms, the hope is that the public will be safer. However, it is important to recognize that not everyone who is convicted of a crime actually committed it, and that the criminal justice system is fallible. In some cases, individuals have been found guilty of crimes they did not commit due to errors made by the police, prosecutors, or judges. In other cases, individuals may have been coerced into confessing to crimes they did not commit due to police misconduct or a lack of legal representation. When such errors are discovered and a conviction is set aside, it is only fair that the individual's rights and freedoms be restored, and that they not be penalized for a crime they did not commit. In practice, this means that if someone is convicted of a criminal offense that carries with it a firearm disability, but is later exonerated and has their conviction set aside, they would not be subject to the same restrictions on their ability to possess or acquire firearms. They would be free to exercise their rights under the law, just like anyone else who has not been convicted of a crime. The provision in section 750(6) is therefore an important safeguard against the potential for injustice in the criminal justice system. By recognizing that individuals who have had their convictions set aside are not deserving of ongoing punishment, it acknowledges the importance of fairness and accountability in the justice system. While the firearm disability provisions may be necessary for public safety, they must also be balanced against the rights of people who may have been wrongly convicted. Section 750(6) is one way to strike that balance.
STRATEGY
Section 750(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that outlines the removal of a criminal record's associated disabilities when a conviction is overturned by competent authority. As such, it is essential to consider the strategic implications and strategies that could be employed when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code. One significant strategic consideration when dealing with Section 750(6) is the timing of its application. The removal of disabilities imposed on a convicted individual's criminal record can have a significant impact on their lives and livelihoods, particularly for individuals who have been denied job opportunities or have faced stigmatization because of their criminal record. Therefore, the application of section 750(6) should be considered at the earliest possible opportunity to minimize the impact of remaining convictions. Another strategic consideration is to ensure that the competent authority recognized by this section is duly recognized and can grant legal relief accordingly. In Canada, courts have the authority to set aside convictions, and this can be done through an appeal or an application for a pardon. Competent authority recognized by section 750(6) can include the appellate court, provincial review boards, or even the Supreme Court of Canada. It is essential to identify these authorities beforehand and seek legal advice on which option will best apply to individual cases. Strategies that could be employed when dealing with section 750(6) include applying for a pardon or appeal, depending on the nature and severity of the crime, and the specific circumstances surrounding the conviction. Applying for a pardon can be a viable option if a certain period has passed, and the individual can demonstrate that they are rehabilitated and have taken steps to better their lives. On the other hand, an appeal can only be made in cases that contain legal errors, breaches of due process or miscarriages of justice. Another approach could be to obtain legal assistance from an experienced criminal lawyer. These professionals can help assess whether the conviction was valid in the first place, and if not, can help launch an appeal or other legal proceedings to have the conviction overturned entirely. As such, they can also help determine the best course of action to remove associated disabilities and help restore an individual's reputation and rights. In conclusion, section 750(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a vital provision that outlines the removal of disabilities imposed on convicted persons when a court overturns a conviction. While legal relief is available under this provision, the timing of the application and the use of the right competent authority are critical strategic considerations. Moreover, obtaining legal assistance from experienced criminal lawyers should also be considered as a viable strategy to remove associated disabilities. Consequently, these approaches can significantly aid individuals in restoring their reputation, securing employment, and mitigating the negative effects of a criminal record.