A narrow issue with respect
to procuring was addressed in Sheppard (1990), 57 C.C.C. (3d) 213
(Nfld.S.C.). The accused was charged that, between 1981 and 1986,
he procured certain women to have illicit intercourse with certain
men. The charge was under former 5. 195(1)(a). At the time of the
alleged offense, former S. 195(4) provided:
No proceedings for an offenses
under this section shall be commenced more then one year after the
time when the offense is alleged to have been committed.
In 1988 this former limitation
period was repealed. When the charge was laid, there was no limitation
period. The accused applied to have the charge stayed on the ground
that when the offence was alleged to have been committed (before
the repeal) he would have been protected from prosecution. The court
disagreed (at 216):
Section 195(4) of the Code
placed a limitation on the commencement of proceedings under S.
195. It did not affect the substance of any charge under the section
and its repeal did not affect the offence. It was procedural only.
Its repeal does not preclude the laying of the charges contained
in sections 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the indictment. The accused's application
is denied.
But Ford (1993), 84 C.C.C.
(3d) 544 (Ont.C.A.) disagreed with this view. Here the accused was
charged with offences alleged to have occurred in 1985 and the charge
was laid in 1989. The Crown argued that the repeal of a limitation
period is a procedural amendment, applying retrospectively. The
Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that once the limitation period
expired the charge could not be laid, notwithstanding the repeal
of 5. former 195(4).
This
legal information is here for your personal use only.
ERmail.org/EscortReviews.org Copyright � 1999/2000 All Rights Reserved
Unauthorized Duplication is Strictly Prohibited!
Any questions or comments should be directed to the webmaster