Côté v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 303 (1974)
Linked as:
Extract
Côté v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 303 (1974)
Supreme Court of Canada
Côté v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 303Date: 1974-04-02Louis Côté Appellant;andHer Majesty The Queen Respondent.1972: October 26; 1974: April 2.Present: Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Pigeon and Laskin JJ.ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBECCriminal law-Theft-Imprisonment-Continuous possession-Subsequent conviction for unlawful possession-Plea of "autrefois convict"-Whether there were two offences-Meaning of words "Every one"-Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 ss. 3(4), 302(d), 312(1), 536, 537(1)(a), 605(1) and 618(2)-Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1927, c. 36, s. 399-Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, s. 36(f).Appellant was convicted of having, while armed, stolen a sum of money, securities and documents, in breach of s. 302(d) of the Criminal Code. He served his sentence and, after being released, was found in possession of a part of the securities stolen by him three years previously. He was charged with unlawful possession under s. 312(1) of the Criminal Code and he pleaded autrefois convict. The trial Judge held that the accused's possession was in continuation of that acquired by him by the theft, and that after being convicted of theft he could not be convicted of unlawful possession of the same article. The Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal and ordered a new trial. The appellant then appealed to this Court.Held (Laskin J. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.Per Fauteux C.J. and Abbott and Judson JJ.: The text of s. 312(1) of the Criminal Code no longer speaks of receiving or retaining. Relying strictly on this text, the offence consists of having anything in one's possession knowing that the thing was obtained by the commission of an offence punishable by indictment, or which would be so punishable, if committed in Canada. As provided by s. 36(f) of the Interpretation Act, this new enactment is to be held to operate as new law, and is not to be construed and have effect as declaratory of the law as contained in the former enactment. The indefinite pronoun "every one" means "anyone", "whoever". So far as rules of interpretation are concerned, there is no bar to a thief who has been convicted and is then found in possession of the thing stolen being, like any other person, convicted of unlawful possession. One cannot validly maintain, on the one hand, that continuation of the thief's possession, whatever its duration, is always a continuation of the act of theft, and, on the other hand, that at the very time and place of the theft the thief commits the offence of unlawful possession dealt with in s. 312(1).Per Martland and Pigeon JJ.: When a subject-matter of an offence is a continuous state of affairs such as possession, a first conviction does not bar a second charge if the state of affairs subsequently continues in existence. This is then a new violation of the law.Per Ritchie J.: The cir...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
