Toronto Criminal Lawyers Blog

World Cup Soccer has hit television screens across the country.  The highly anticipated event causes adrenaline rushes in fans across the globe. Soccer fans should remember that the way they choose to express their jubilation at winning and upset at losing can have criminal law implications. During the World Cup it is common to see people hanging off of cars, waving flags, honking horns, dancing in the streets in an intoxicated state, and, generally, creating a lot of noise. Sometimes the dynamic of a crowd can cause people to forget that the criminal law still applies no matter how many individuals choose the same form of expression. The reality is that some of the gregarious World Cup behavior can attract criminal charges. According to the Canadian Criminal Code, causing a disturbance is a criminal offence. Section 175(1)(a) provides:

175. (1) Everyone who, not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,

(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,

(ii) by being drunk, or

(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This section of the Criminal Code creates a summary conviction offence.  The matter will be heard before a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. The accused does not have the option of having a trial by judge and jury.

The word “disturbance” can be given a variety of differing definitions. At one end of the spectrum, “disturbance” means a disruption in the form of an annoyance or irritation. At the more serious end of the spectrum, the word may denote an actual physical disruption which could include violence. In the eyes of the law, not every event that ‘disturbs’ people will constitute an act which “causes a disturbance’. For example, smoking a cigarette or having an inappropriate conversation may disturb some people. However, these acts do not constitute conduct which can “cause a disturbance” according to the criminal law.

The phrase “cause a disturbance” has been definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Lohnes, [1992] S.C.J.No. 6. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that for purposes of the criminal law, a “disturbance” must have a secondary impact- i.e. A manifested interference with the ordinary state of affairs. The “disturbance” contemplated by s.175(1)(a) is something more than a mere emotional upset or annoyance.  The offensive conduct must cause an externally manifested disturbance of the public peace. For World Cup fans to run afoul of the criminal law, the celebration of a victory or the anger at defeat must cause an individual to express himself in some way that creates a disturbance of the public peace. The offence has two essential components:

1) The commission of one of the enumerated acts (fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language, being drunk, impeding or molesting other persons); and,

2) causing a disturbance in or near a public place.

Whether or not the offending conduct has “caused a disturbance”, is a question of fact that will be determined by the court. The Court will consider the degree and intensity of the activity complained of and the degree and nature of the ‘peace’ that can be expected in the particular location at the particular time. The contextual circumstances of the behaviour is a very important consideration.  This means that to a certain extent the bar of appropriate(legal) behaviour may vary depending on the context. The same sentiment which may be expressed legally on College Street after Brazil, Portugal or Italy has scored a goal, may be illegal in a quiet suburb.  Yelling, screaming and swearing in Little Italy, when the Italian soccer team scores a winning goal, is not likely to cause a disturbance. The nature and degree of peace on College Street during the celebration of an Italian win is such that honking your horn and yelling does not cause a disturbance. Loud celebrations during World Cup season on College in the afternoon are markedly different from the same type of celebrations at 4.a.m. in a residential area where everyone is sleeping. The latter is more likely to be viewed by the Courts as the type of behavior that can cause a disturbance. Whether or not the behavior complained of actually constitutes the offence of ‘causing a disturbance’ is dependent on the consequences which arise from the behavior.

When you are celebrating those winning goals it is important to be aware of your surroundings. Living in a multi-cultural city like Toronto creates an intense situation during the World Cup. It is important to be mindful of the variety of cultures and backgrounds present in your environment. Yelling screaming and swearing in celebration with fellow supporters is different from yelling, screaming and swearing at the opposition. Shouting abusive language by itself will not likely create criminal liability. However, even in Little Italy, there is a limit to the type of celebratory behaviour which is tolerated. Starting a fight or a riot in the street is more serious and is likely to give rise to an offence under this section of the Code. The use of insulting or obscene language may initiate a “disturbance”. It is the foreseeable impact of the act which matters. The use of insulting and obscene language is not uncommon during the World Cup. Insulting another person in the street in a loud voice, and thereby attracting a crowd, may have criminal repercussions. When the use of insults or obscene language cause disorder or agitation and interfere with the normal use of the public area, a “disturbance” has been caused, and the perpetrators may be charged.

In order to secure a conviction on a charge of causing a disturbance the prosecution must show that the resulting disturbance was reasonably foreseeable in the particular circumstances. The person who caused the disturbance must have been able to foresee that such a reaction would result from his/her behavior. It will be up to a court to determine whether or not the perpetrator could have reasonably foreseen the outcome. However, it is important to remember that the Courts assessment of foreseeability is contextual. Therefore, the heightened state of emotions during the World Cup, and the increased parameters of civilized debate, are factors that the Court will ordinarily take into consideration. The Court will determine whether or not it would be reasonable for a person to foresee the “disturbance” quality of their actions. As stated, the same behaviour which may be illegal in the sleeping suburbs may be perfectly legal during a World Cup celebration. Context is everything.

Please don’t get the impression that during the World Cup there are no limits on what a person is legally permitted to do so long as they are celebrating or expressing their disappointment. Although more extreme behaviour may be tolerated, there is a point where outrageous behaviour will give rise to criminal consequences.

So, enjoy the World Cup and celebrate responsibly.  If you have been charged with “causing a disturbance” contact Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers for the best defence.

Entrapment

Entrapment is one of the many defences available in the criminal justice system. However, criminal defence lawyers will only pursue a defence of entrapment if the facts suggest that this defence may be successful. Only rarely will the facts of the case support a defence of entrapment.

All defences are split into two categories: excuses and justifications. Justification defences are defences the accused can raise to show that he or she did the right thing in the circumstances and should therefore not be punished. The best example of this is self-defence. Defendants who raise an excuse defence, on the other hand, admit that they committed a crime and acted immorally, but assert that they have an excuse for the way they acted. A good example of an excuse defence is mental illness. Entrapment is also an example of an excuse defence. This means that when a defendant raises a defence of entrapment, they admit to committing the crime in question, however, they argue that they have a reasonable excuse for their conduct.

The idea behind entrapment is that the individual was enticed or provoked into committing a crime by the police. When the police overstep their duty to investigate crime and instead initiate or create a crime, the defence may arise. The rationale behind the defence is that it constitutes abuse of process on the part of the Crown prosecute an individual, if his or her crime was motivated by police instigation. As a result, if the defence can establish entrapment, the court will stay the proceedings against you. The result of a stay is that the case against you cannot proceed, no guilty conviction is entered against you and the incident will not appear on your criminal record.

A defence of entrapment tends to be available on charges relating to drugs or prostitution. The general scenario is that the police will have an undercover agent approach an individual soliciting sex or trying to buy drugs. If the individual agrees to purchase sex or sell drugs, the police will then arrest them on charges of solicitation for the purposes of prostitution or trafficking in narcotics. If the police conduct reached the point that they are actively encouraging an individual who would not ordinarily have committed a crime to commit an illegal act, the defence of entrapment may become available.

The defence of entrapment was successfully raised in the case of R. v. Mack. Mack was a former drug addict who had reformed and given up drugs with the help of yoga. Nonetheless, police officers decided to target Mack in an undercover operation to search for evidence of drug trafficking. The police enlisted two confidential informants to contact Mack. The informants approached Mack asking for drugs, but he refused to sell them. Later, the informants followed Mack to a yoga retreat while still undercover and harassed him to arrange a drug deal for them. Mack still refused to be involved in any form of drug transaction. Finally, the confidential informants took Mack on a walk in the woods, where they told him that their “people” were coming into town today and needed drugs. The informants told Mack that their people would be very “upset” if Mack could not get them the drugs. Then, the confidential informants showed Mack a pistol and said, “someone could really get lost out here in the woods”. Following that threatening statement, Mack relented and agreed to procure a large amount of cocaine for them. Mack showed up at the arranged transaction spot, was shown a suitcase of money, and made the exchange. Unbeknownst to Mack, the two men he was making the drug exchange with were undercover police officers. Following the exchange, Mack was arrested.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the defence of entrapment to succeed in Mack and stayed the proceedings against him. The court emphatically explained that the police should not engage in “random virtue testing” of the population. By this the court meant that the police should not test the virtue of individual citizens by offering them the opportunity to commit a crime at random. When the police do this, they seem to create crime and then arrest people for the crimes they create. The individual arrested may never have committed a crime in his or her life if not for his or her interactions with the police. Such conduct on the part of the police offends our justice system’s fundamental values of justice and fairness.

In Mack the Supreme Court laid down a test to determine when entrapment has occurred. At the first stage of the test, the court asks whether the police have targeted individuals based on a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in crime or through involvement in a bona fide investigation. According to the court, anything short of reasonable suspicion or a bona fide investigation would constitute random virtue testing. A bona fide investigation is an authorized investigation in a targeted area. For example, the police can target a particular area if they have reasonable grounds to believe criminal activity is prevalent there; however, they cannot walk the streets at random posing as civilians and trying to encourage individuals to commit crimes. If the police target an individual who they do not have reasonable grounds to suspect is involved in criminal activity or they target random people outside the context of a bona fide investigation, the defence of entrapment will operate to stay the proceedings against the defendant.

Even if the first part of the test is not met, the defence of entrapment may still be available to the defendant under step two of the test from Mack. At step two, the court must consider a number of factors to determine whether the police manipulated or directed the defendant to commit the crime. The court refers to this as “planting the seed of crime” within the individual. The idea is that, by “planting the seed of crime”, the police cause a person who may never have committed a crime to engage in criminal activity. In the case of Mack, the court determined that even though the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that Mack may be involved in criminal activity, they went so far as to “plant the seed of crime within him”; thus, the court allowed the defence of entrapment under the second branch of the test.
In Mack the court lists a number of factors to help determine whether the police crossed the line and “planted the seed of crime”.

The list of factors for the court to consider are as follows:
• the type of crime being investigated and the availability of other techniques for police detection of its commission;
• whether an average person, with both strengths and weaknesses, in the position of the accused would be induced into the commission of a crime;
• the persistence and number of attempts made by the police before the accused agreed to committing the offence;
• the type of inducement used by the police including: deceit, fraud, trickery or reward;
• the timing of the police conduct, in particular whether the police have instigated the offence or became involved in ongoing criminal activity;
• whether the police conduct involves an exploitation of human characteristics such as the emotions of compassion, sympathy and friendship;
• whether the police appear to have exploited a particular vulnerability of a person such as a mental handicap or a substance addiction;
• the proportionality between the police involvement, as compared to the accused, including an assessment of the degree of harm caused or risked by the police, as compared to the accused, and the commission of any illegal acts by the police themselves;
• the existence of any threats, implied or express, made to the accused by the police or their agents; and
• whether the police conduct is directed at undermining other constitutional values.

The court will look at these factors to determine whether or not to stay the proceedings due to entrapment.

Make sure that you are represented by competent criminal defence lawyers. Call Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers.