Breach of condition

If an offender is ordered to custody, the custodial period shall be served consecutively to any other period of imprisonment that the offender is serving.

Section 742.7(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the sentencing of offenders who have been found guilty of criminal offenses and are being sentenced to a custodial period of imprisonment. This section states that if an order is made under either paragraph 742.6(9)(c) or (d) to commit an offender to custody, then that custodial period ordered must be served consecutively to any other period of imprisonment that the offender is currently serving at the time the order is made. Paragraph 742.6(9)(c) and (d) both deal with the sentencing options available to a criminal court. Paragraph 742.6(9)(c) allows a court to make a suspended sentence order which may include conditions that the offender complete a period of probation or community service. Paragraph 742.6(9)(d) allows a court to make an order where the offender is to be placed on a conditional sentence order, which means that the offender will be able to serve their sentence in the community under strict conditions instead of being incarcerated. The purpose of Section 742.7(2) is to ensure that offenders who are being sentenced to a custodial period of imprisonment serve those periods of time consecutively, ensuring that they fully serve the length of time that they have been sentenced to. This section is important as it reinforces the idea that justice must be served properly and that the guilty parties must be held accountable for their actions. It also ensures that offenders cannot serve two sentences simultaneously, thereby reducing the likelihood of offenders being at large at an earlier time. Overall, this section plays a key role in maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system in Canada.

Section 742.7(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada addresses a crucial issue in the criminal justice system - the imposition of consecutive or concurrent sentences for offenders who commit multiple offenses. This provision empowers the court to order the offender to serve their sentence consecutively to another sentence the offender is already serving unless it is deemed unfair or unnecessary. The aim of having consecutive or concurrent sentences is to ensure that the offender is held accountable for all of their offending behavior and to send a clear message of deterrence to others. The court is mandated to consider two main factors in determining whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences - the principle of totality and the principle of proportionality. The principle of totality is premised on the idea that any sentence imposed on the offender should reflect the totality of their offending behavior. It means that the court is required to consider the aggregate effect of all offenses committed by the offender and to impose an appropriate sentence that is commensurate with the harm inflicted. If the court finds that the offender must serve their sentence consecutively to another sentence the offender is serving; it is likely because the judge believes that it is necessary to ensure that the sentence imposed reflects the totality of the offending behaviour. The principle of proportionality requires the punishment to fit the crime. It means that the sentence must be neither too harsh nor too lenient but should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Having consecutive sentences for offenders who have committed multiple offenses ensures that the punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and serves as a deterrent to future offenders. In addition to the above principles, there are other considerations that the court is mandated to make when deciding on whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. The court must consider the overall length of the sentence, the offender's criminal history, the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the offenses committed, and the degree of culpability. The requirement that a custodial period ordered for an offender serving another sentence, must be served consecutively to the original sentence, underscores the courts' commitment to ensuring that the offender is held accountable for all their offences. This provision ensures that an offender avoids the possibility of eligibility for parole until they have served their entire custodial sentence and prohibits a harsher penalty for those in custody because of an earlier conviction by ensuring that the offender serves the custodial sentence he received upon the subsequent charge. In conclusion, section 742.7(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada has significant implications for the criminal justice system. It ensures that sentencing of offenders reflects the gravity of their offences, and that the punishment imposed is proportionate. It is important that the courts consider the totality principle and the principle of proportionality when deciding whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. The addition of subsection 742.7(2) helps ensure that consecutive sentences are imposed in the interests of justice.

Section 742.7(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that guides the administration of sentences for offenders who are found guilty of multiple offenses. It provides that when an offender is sentenced to custody, the period of imprisonment ordered should be served consecutively to any other term the offender is serving at the time that the order is made. However, this mandate is subject to the court's discretion, as it emphasizes that this should only be done in the interest of justice. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada, strategic considerations must be made to maximize its application and ensure that the objectives of the sentence are achieved. The following are some strategic considerations that should be taken into account: 1. Severity of the offense The severity of the offense committed by the offender should be considered. The more serious the offense committed, the more likely the court will apply this provision. This consideration is because the objective of the sentence is to maintain public safety and deter the offender from future criminal behavior. 2. Past Criminal Record The offender's past criminal record should also be considered. If an offender has a history of committing offenses, judges may impose consecutive sentences to ensure that they get the punishment they deserve. Additionally, the likelihood of re-offending would be reduced if the offender must serve the custodial sentence consecutively to their current term. 3. Social and Family Circumstances of the Offender The offender's social and family circumstances may also be considered in determining whether or not to impose consecutive sentences. The court may take into account factors such as the offender's community involvement, employment or lack thereof, the offender's physical and mental health status, among others. 4. The Cooperation of the Offender The offender's level of cooperation with the authorities during investigation and trial could also be considered. A sentencing judge may see a significant level of cooperation as a mitigating factor in deciding whether or not to impose a consecutive sentence. Having considered the strategic considerations mentioned above, the following are some strategic steps that can be employed: 1. Plea Agreement One way to mitigate the effect of a mandatory consecutive sentence is to negotiate a plea agreement with the prosecutor. This will involve the offender pleading guilty to the offense committed in exchange for a reduced sentence or the prosecutor agreeing not to seek consecutive sentences. 2. Psychology Evidences One way of convincing the court to use its discretion and not impose a consecutive sentence is to present psychological evidence. This will involve the use of expert witnesses to convince the court that imposing a consecutive sentence on the offender will cause emotional and psychological harm to the offender. This evidence could influence the court to impose a concurrent sentence. 3. Sentencing Negotiations Another strategic step is to negotiate sentencing with the prosecutor. This will involve presenting mitigating factors such as the offender's community involvement, physical and mental health status, and family circumstances. This may influence the prosecutor to agree to a concurrent sentence. 4. Sentence Appeal If the court imposes a consecutive sentence, the offender can appeal the sentence to a higher court. The offender can argue that the sentence is unjust or not in the interests of justice. If successful, the higher court may order that the sentence be changed to a concurrent one. In conclusion, Section 742.7(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a unique opportunity for offenders to be served consecutive sentences or a concurrent one. These strategic considerations and steps outlined are important when dealing with the implementation of this provision of the Criminal Code. By considering the strategic steps and factors, we can improve the administration of Justice, even under complex circumstances.