Annual Report on the RCMP's Use of the Law Enforcement Justification Provisions (2006-2007)

I. INTRODUCTION

Sections 25.1-25.4 of the Criminal Code provide a limited justification at law for acts and omissions that would otherwise be offences when committed by designated law enforcement officers (and those acting under their direction) while investigating an offence under federal law, enforcing a federal law, or investigating criminal activity. The law enforcement justification provisions are subject to a legal requirement of reasonableness and proportionality.

The law enforcement justification provisions also establish a system of accountability that includes a requirementNote 1 under which the competent authority— the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in the case of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)—must make public an annual report on the use of specific portions of the law enforcement justification provisions by members of the RCMP.
In particular, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must report:

• how many times a senior official made temporary designations under the provisions; Note 2

• how many times a senior official authorized a public officer to commit an act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence, and that is likely to result in loss of or serious damage to property, or directed an agent to commit an act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence;Note 3

• how many times a public officer proceeded without such an authorization from a senior official, due to exigent circumstances; Note 4

• the nature of the conduct being investigated in these instances;Note 5 and

• the types of justified acts or omissions, which would otherwise constitute offences, that were committed in these instances.Note 6

The first annual report on the RCMP's use of specific portions of the law enforcement justification provisions was tabled in Parliament on June 13, 2003.

This report addresses the RCMP's use of specific portions of the law enforcement justification provisions from February 1, 2006 – January 31, 2007.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT JUSTIFICATION REGIME

In April 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in R. v. Campbell and Shirose declared that under the common law, police were not immune from criminal liability for criminal acts they committed during an investigation. The Court also stated that, “if some form of public interest immunity is to be extended to the police…it should be left to Parliament to delineate the nature and scope of the immunity and the circumstances in which it is available.”Note 7

On December 18, 2001, Bill C-24, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Organized Crime and Law Enforcement), received Royal Assent. While most portions of Bill C-24 came into force on January 7, 2002, the law enforcement justification provisions, set out in sections 25.1-25.4 of the Criminal Code, were proclaimed on February 1, 2002. 

The law enforcement justification provisions respond to the judgment in Campbell and Shirose by providing a limited justification at law for acts or omissions that would otherwise be offences when committed by law enforcement officers (and those acting under their direction) while investigating an offence under federal law, enforcing a federal law, or investigating criminal activity. They also establish a system of accountability.

The law enforcement justification provisions are subject to a legal requirement of reasonableness and proportionality. This legal requirement of reasonableness and proportionality is assessed in the circumstances through consideration of such matters as the nature of the act or omission, the nature of the investigation, and the reasonable availability of other means for carrying out the officer's duties. Certain types of conduct, such as intentionally causing bodily harm, violating the sexual integrity of a person and willfully attempting to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice, are excluded from the justification provisions.Note 8

The law enforcement justification provisions also establish a system of accountability. An essential element of the law enforcement justification provisions is that they apply to designated public officers only.Note 9 In the case of RCMP members, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is the competent authority responsible for making designations.Note 10

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is also responsible for designating senior officials, who then advise the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on public officer designations.Note 11 Under ordinary circumstances, only the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness may issue public officer designations to RCMP members; however, in exigent circumstances, a senior official may make temporary public officer designations. A senior official may designate a public officer for a period of 48 hours or less if the senior official believes that due to exigent circumstances, it is not feasible for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to designate a public officer andunder the circumstances, the public officer would be justified in committing an act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence.Note 12

A public officer must receive a written authorization from a senior official for acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute an offence and that would likely result in loss of, or serious damage to, property, or for directing another person to commit an act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence.Note 13

A public officer may only proceed without a written authorization from a senior official for acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute an offence and that would likely result in loss of or serious damage to property, or for directing another person to commit an act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence, under very limited circumstances. He or she must believe, on reasonable grounds, that the grounds for obtaining an authorization exist, but it is not feasible under the circumstances to obtain the authorization, and that the act or omission is necessary to:

• preserve the life or safety of a person;

• avoid compromising the identity of a public officer acting in an undercover capacity, a confidential informant, or a person acting covertly under the direction and control of a public officer; or

• prevent the imminent loss or destruction of evidence of an indictable offence.Note 14

III. STATISTICS

III.I Temporary Designations

Paragraphs 25.3(1)(a), (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code require the following information to be made public:

• The number of temporary public officer designations made by the senior officials.Note 15
• The nature of the conduct being investigated in these cases.
• The nature of the justified acts or omissions, which would otherwise constitute offences, that were committed by the designated public officer.

From February 1, 2006 to January 31, 2007, the RCMP reports that the senior officials made no temporary designations.

III.II Authorizations for Specific Acts and Omissions

Paragraphs 25.3(1)(b), (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code require the following information to be made public:
· The number of cases in which the senior officials:

• authorized a public officer to commit a justified act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence and that would likely result in loss of or serious damage to property, or
  
• authorized a public officer to direct another person to commit a justified act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence.Note 16
  

· The nature of the conduct being investigated in these cases.
· The nature of the justified acts or omissions, which would otherwise constitute offences, that were committed.

From February 1, 2006 to January 31, 2007, the RCMP reports that sixteen authorizations were granted, for directing another person to commit a justified act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence.

• In three of these instances, the RCMP was investigating alleged terrorist activities. Justified acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute Criminal Code offences relating to knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity and knowingly participating in a terrorist activity were committed.

• In three of these instances, the RCMP was investigating alleged counterfeit currency. Justified acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute Criminal Code offences relating to possession, buying/receiving, and offering to buy/receive counterfeit money were committed.

• In one of these instances, the RCMP was investigating alleged credit card fraud.  Justified acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute Criminal Code offences relating to possession/use/trafficking of a credit card or forging/falsifying a credit card were committed.

• In three of these instances, the RCMP was conducting an investigation in relation to Immigration and Passports. Justified acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and

Criminal Code offences relating to documents, forgery of or uttering forged passports and uttering forged document were committed.

• In six of these instances, no justified acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute an offence were committed.

From February 1, 2006 – January 31, 2007, the RCMP reports that no authorizations were granted to public officers to commit justified acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute offences and that would likely result in loss of or serious damage to property.

III.III Instances of Public Officers Proceeding Without Senior Official Authorization

Paragraphs 25.3(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code require the following information to be made public:

• The number of times that public officers proceeded without a senior official's authorization, based on reasonable grounds to believe that the grounds for obtaining an authorization existed and that the justified act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence was necessary due to exigent circumstances.Note 17
• The nature of the conduct being investigated when public officers proceeded in this manner.
• The nature of the justified acts or omissions, which would otherwise constitute offences, that were committed when the public officers proceeded in this manner.

From February 1, 2006 to January 31, 2007, the RCMP reports that no public officer proceeded without a senior official's written authorization in these circumstances.

IV. CONCLUSION

Between February 1, 2006 and January 31, 2007, the fifth year of operation of sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code, the RCMP has made no temporary designations.Note 18 There have been sixteen instances in which a senior official authorized a designated public officer to direct another person to commit a justified act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence.Note 19  Included in these sixteen authorizations are six authorizations where no acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute an offence were committed. There has been no case in which a designated public officer proceeded without a senior official's authorization in these circumstances.Note 20

Section 46.1 of the Statutes of Canada 2001, c.32 (Bill C-24 - An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) provides that “within three years after this section comes into force, a review of sections 25.1 to 25.4 and their operation shall be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament, that is designated or established for that purpose.”

The Parliamentary review of sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code and their operation, started on May 9, 2006, by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The Committee's review has not yet been completed.

Date modified:

2016-01-19