|
Criminal - Statutory Breach
COMMENT
The Criminal Code's CCC 126 - 'Disobeying a statute' provision is an interesting (and, if my initial case-searches are any indication, rarely-used) CCC provision with potentially broad application. It reads straight-forwardly, and logically would apply to any intentional breach of a federal statutory provision (probably Regulations too, but I've found no cases on that) that creates a duty to act, or to refrain from acting, as set out therein - unless another "a punishment is expressly provided by law". In short, this is a federal default punishment' when none exists otherwise. Being a criminal provision, the default mens rea is the highest one of 'intentionally'.
It wouldn't logically apply to most CCC provisions, as they already have statutory punishments attached - nor as well to the large number of non-CCC federal regulatory statutes that require or prohibit certain behaviours, for the same reasons (such 'offence and punishment' provisions are usually located close to the end of the regulatory statute). It may have some application in federal administrative regimes, particularly procedural ones, where occasions of 'breach' are usually left to administrative discretionary sanction, for example something as simple as a time-limit for filing procedural documentation, and similar things which are widespread. In such situations the limiting factor on such CCC 126 prosecutions would logically be the mens rea 'intentionality' requirement, as it would be hard to prove the act (or omission) on a criminal 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard when 'accident' is so easy to allege and hard to prove otherwise.
However the provision is so broad, that I find it attractive as an almost also automatic consideration in any federal regulatory or administrative breach situation, and it's here that great care must be exercised. I initially thought it attractive (for exploration) as a non-criminal negotiating tool, in situations that most lawyers face where delay and procedural 'dumb insolence' can drive up costs and resolution-time for the case. However CCC 126 has very little existing case law and the possibility arises that use of the provision in this manner can constitute criminal extortion [under CCC 346(1)]. While, such extortion charges are subject to a "reasonable justification or excuse" defence, they are quite serious and one could be opening themselves to a 'world of hurt' just for trying to be tactically slick.
|
