Content area
Full Text
Bill C-24, now section 25.1 of the Criminal Code, represents Parliament's legislative response to police illegality in the course of undercover operations. There is very little historical basis to support the creation of this type of legislation which represents a complete rejection of what the state of the law was up to its coining into force. These provisions were unnecessary and any ameliorative effect will be negligible in comparison to its detrimental impact. The necessity for these provisions is questionable when one considers the arguments used to support its creation, the actual instances of police illegality in undercover operations and the historic approaches to the various issues surrounding police illegality. Through the common law, current statutory immunities and certain investigative techniques, the issues associated with operational police illegality can be effectively addressed without this provision. These historical mechanisms will continue to be used regardless of section 25.1. The deleterious effect of this legislation is a concern for both the general public and the law enforcement community. It has the potential to capture investigative techniques and practices which were outside of its original intent, thereby restricting the very technique it was supposed to assist. Also, Bill C-24 represents a fundamental shift away from police accountability and external review of some of the most invasive investigative techniques used by the police. Hill C-24 will have a negative impact on the police's ability to conduct undercover operations.
Le Projet de loi C-24, maintenant devenu l'art. 25.1 du Code criminel, constitue la réponse législative apportée par le Parlement au problème des illégalités commises par la police dans le cadre d'opérations d'infiltration. Il existe très peu de fondements historiques pour justifier la création de telles dispositions législatives, qui représentent un rejet complet de l'état du droit existant au moment de leur entrée en vigueur. Ces dispositions n'étaient pas nécessaires; les améliorations en résultant ne pouvaient être que négligeables par rapport à leur effet préjudiciable. La nécessité d'adopter ces dispositions s'avère discutable, surtout lorsqu'on considère les arguments invoqués pour appuyer leur création, les véritables cas d'illégalités commises par la police dans le cadre d'opérations d'infiltration et les approches utilisées à travers l'histoire pour aborder les diverses questions relatives aux activités illégales de la police. Les questions associées aux...