Bomb Threats And Misuse Of Explosives
1. Overview of Bomb Threats and Misuse of Explosives
In Canada, bomb threats and misuse of explosives are primarily governed by the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), Part VIII – Firearms and Other Weapons, and specifically sections related to explosives (Sections 81–88).
Key Offences
Detonating Explosives (s. 81)
Using or causing an explosive to explode in a manner that is likely to cause injury, death, or property damage.
Maximum Penalty: Life imprisonment, if intended to cause death or serious bodily harm.
Possession of Explosives (s. 82)
Unlawful possession, manufacture, or import of explosives.
Maximum Penalty: 14 years, depending on intent.
Making Bomb Threats (s. 264.1 – Threats)
Communicating a threat to detonate an explosive to intimidate, coerce, or cause fear.
Maximum Penalty: 5 years if indictable, or lesser if summary conviction.
Misuse of Explosives (s. 83)
Using explosives to commit an offence or endanger public safety.
Covers terrorist acts, property destruction, or intimidation.
Trafficking Explosives (s. 84)
Sale, distribution, or import/export without authorization.
Maximum Penalty: 14 years, depending on the scale and intent.
2. Elements of Bomb Threats and Explosive Offences
To establish liability, the prosecution must show:
Actus Reus (Guilty Act)
Making a threat, possessing, transporting, or using explosives.
Explosive device may or may not have detonated (threat alone can suffice).
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)
Intent to cause fear, injury, death, or property damage.
Recklessness can also satisfy mens rea for some offences.
Causation
In cases of detonation, linking the act to actual harm or risk is necessary.
Knowledge
The accused must know they are dealing with explosives or making a threat.
3. Important Canadian Case Law
Case 1: R v. Bissonnette [2016] 1 S.C.R. 192
Facts: Accused was convicted for making a bomb threat against a government office.
Issue: Does verbal threat without a device constitute an offence?
Decision: Supreme Court held that a communicated threat, even without an actual explosive, is sufficient under s. 264.1, as long as it causes fear of harm.
Significance: Confirms that the perception of threat alone can be criminally actionable.
Case 2: R v. Ahluwalia [2010] O.J. No. 4309
Facts: Ahluwalia was caught possessing materials used to make explosives with intent to commit property damage.
Issue: Is possession alone enough for conviction?
Decision: Court ruled that possession with intent to use or make explosives is sufficient for conviction. Mere possession without intent is not enough.
Significance: Highlights the role of intent in possession offences under s. 82.
Case 3: R v. Khawaja [2014] O.J. No. 2502
Facts: Accused was charged with planning to detonate explosives in a public area.
Issue: How is conspiracy or preparation treated under explosive offences?
Decision: Court held that planning, preparation, or conspiracy to use explosives is sufficient for prosecution, even if detonation did not occur.
Significance: Courts focus on dangerous intent and preparation, not only completed acts.
Case 4: R v. Ryerson [2008] B.C.C.A. 321
Facts: Ryerson placed an improvised explosive device (IED) in a building causing minor property damage.
Issue: What sentencing principles apply for misuse of explosives?
Decision: Court emphasized public safety and deterrence. Ryerson received 6 years imprisonment.
Significance: Demonstrates that courts treat explosive offences seriously even with limited physical harm.
Case 5: R v. Salim [2012] O.J. No. 1184
Facts: Salim made repeated bomb threats against a school.
Issue: Can repeated threats increase sentencing severity?
Decision: Court applied aggravating factors for repeated and targeted threats, sentencing Salim to 3 years custody.
Significance: Repeated threats escalate both perceived danger and sentence severity.
Case 6: R v. Chahal [2015] O.J. No. 2230
Facts: Chahal manufactured explosives intending to intimidate a business competitor.
Issue: Does misuse of explosives for intimidation constitute a terrorism or criminal offence?
Decision: Court confirmed that using explosives for coercion or intimidation constitutes a serious criminal offence, separate from terrorism provisions.
Significance: Expands the scope of “misuse of explosives” to include non-physical harm acts like intimidation.
4. Key Principles from Case Law
Threats alone are criminal (R v. Bissonnette, Salim).
Intent is crucial for possession or misuse of explosives (R v. Ahluwalia, Chahal).
Planning or preparation is actionable even if detonation does not occur (R v. Khawaja).
Public safety and deterrence influence sentencing (R v. Ryerson).
Repeated or targeted threats aggravate sentences (R v. Salim).
5. Summary Table
| Offence Type | Legal Section | Key Element | Case Example | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bomb Threat | 264.1 | Communicated threat causing fear | R v. Bissonnette 2016 | 5 yrs |
| Possession of Explosives | 82 | Possession with intent | R v. Ahluwalia 2010 | 14 yrs |
| Misuse of Explosives | 83 | Using explosives to endanger/public | R v. Chahal 2015 | Life / 14 yrs |
| Preparation / Conspiracy | 81 | Planning or aiding explosion | R v. Khawaja 2014 | Life imprisonment |
| Actual Detonation / Damage | 81 | Causing physical harm or destruction | R v. Ryerson 2008 | Life / 14 yrs |
| Repeated Threats / Aggravated | 264.1 | Repeated threats toward targets | R v. Salim 2012 | 5 yrs |
This framework covers legal provisions, essential elements, and significant case law on bomb threats and misuse of explosives.
RELATED Blog
comments