This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RIPChicken, Madimacdonald.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think note 7 is wrong. Intoxication negates the mens rea of specific intent crimes, but not crimes of general intent. Daviault opened the possibility for intoxication to apply to general intent crimes but s.33.1 appears to have closed that possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.34.253 ( talk) 06:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
24% of crimes committed by youth were by 17-year-olds, 24% were by 16-year-olds, 22% by 15, 15% by 14, 8% by 13 and 3% by 12
Is it a criminal offense to not advise a arbitrarily held prisoner of his rights to council?
In case I get lost my email is Criticalmassone@hotmail.com
No, it is not a criminal offence to fail to advise a prisoner of his/her right to counsel. However, if a police officer fails to do so and the prisoner makes incriminating statements then these statements may possibly be found to be inadmissible as evidence because the prisoner's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. As well, it might also be considered unprofessional conduct and making a complaint against the police officer.
-Hairytoad (hairytoad2005@hotmail.com)
Why do we have these two articles separate with no links to each other? Granted, they're slightly distinct, but pretty intertwined. The article wouldn't be too long if they were combined. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no good reason to merge them. They should simply be linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.20.197 ( talk • contribs) 17:34, February 28, 2007 (UTC)
An editor amended the article by changing all uses of the word "offence" to "offense." I've reverted them, because the Criminal Code uses "offence" throughout. See for example s. 2 of the Code, the "Interpretation" section. I've also added a "Canadian English" box to the talk page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that it seems to written by somebody affiliated with the law and is trying to put it in an official tone like a government website. Should a tag be added for this? Enthers ( talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criminal law of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Article states the following:
Most other offences defined by the Criminal Code are triable either way, and are sometimes known as hybrid offences. In these offences the accused person can elect whether to be tried by:
* a provincial court judge, * a judge of the higher court of the province without a jury or
* a judge of the higher court with a jury.
But DOJ website [1] states the following:
A hybrid offence is an offence where the prosecutor can choose, based on factors such as the seriousness of the accused's actions and the harm caused, to proceed with the offence as either a summary conviction offence or as an indictable offence.
While not necessarily directly contradictory, if both are correct then the article should explain how. -- DanTrent ( talk) 05:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
References
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RIPChicken, Madimacdonald.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think note 7 is wrong. Intoxication negates the mens rea of specific intent crimes, but not crimes of general intent. Daviault opened the possibility for intoxication to apply to general intent crimes but s.33.1 appears to have closed that possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.34.253 ( talk) 06:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
24% of crimes committed by youth were by 17-year-olds, 24% were by 16-year-olds, 22% by 15, 15% by 14, 8% by 13 and 3% by 12
Is it a criminal offense to not advise a arbitrarily held prisoner of his rights to council?
In case I get lost my email is Criticalmassone@hotmail.com
No, it is not a criminal offence to fail to advise a prisoner of his/her right to counsel. However, if a police officer fails to do so and the prisoner makes incriminating statements then these statements may possibly be found to be inadmissible as evidence because the prisoner's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. As well, it might also be considered unprofessional conduct and making a complaint against the police officer.
-Hairytoad (hairytoad2005@hotmail.com)
Why do we have these two articles separate with no links to each other? Granted, they're slightly distinct, but pretty intertwined. The article wouldn't be too long if they were combined. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no good reason to merge them. They should simply be linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.20.197 ( talk • contribs) 17:34, February 28, 2007 (UTC)
An editor amended the article by changing all uses of the word "offence" to "offense." I've reverted them, because the Criminal Code uses "offence" throughout. See for example s. 2 of the Code, the "Interpretation" section. I've also added a "Canadian English" box to the talk page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that it seems to written by somebody affiliated with the law and is trying to put it in an official tone like a government website. Should a tag be added for this? Enthers ( talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criminal law of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Article states the following:
Most other offences defined by the Criminal Code are triable either way, and are sometimes known as hybrid offences. In these offences the accused person can elect whether to be tried by:
* a provincial court judge, * a judge of the higher court of the province without a jury or
* a judge of the higher court with a jury.
But DOJ website [1] states the following:
A hybrid offence is an offence where the prosecutor can choose, based on factors such as the seriousness of the accused's actions and the harm caused, to proceed with the offence as either a summary conviction offence or as an indictable offence.
While not necessarily directly contradictory, if both are correct then the article should explain how. -- DanTrent ( talk) 05:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
References