Comparative Study Of Canadian Criminal Law And European Criminal Law
1. Introduction
Criminal law systems vary across the world, reflecting differences in legal traditions, constitutional frameworks, and societal values.
Canada: Follows a common law system with codified statutes in the Criminal Code of Canada, influenced heavily by English law but adapted to Canadian values and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Europe: Comprises multiple jurisdictions, primarily influenced by civil law traditions (France, Germany) and supranational instruments like European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). European criminal law emphasizes codification, proportionality, and human rights compliance.
The comparative study focuses on: criminal responsibility, procedural safeguards, punishment, and human rights protections.
2. Comparative Analysis with Case Law
A. Criminal Responsibility
Canada: R. v. Lavallee (1990)
Facts: A woman killed her abusive partner claiming self-defense.
Issue: Whether battered woman syndrome could be used to justify self-defense under Canadian law.
Judicial Interpretation: Supreme Court of Canada recognized psychological evidence as relevant to criminal responsibility.
Impact: Expanded the definition of self-defense and acknowledged the mental state of victims under prolonged abuse.
European Comparison: Similar approach in Germany, where the Penal Code allows consideration of psychological circumstances under “justifying circumstances” (Notwehr).
Europe: R v. Dudley and Stephens (UK, 1884) [Historic Influence]
Facts: Sailors killed a cabin boy to survive.
Judicial Interpretation: Even under extreme necessity, murder is not justified.
Impact: This influenced both UK and Canadian criminal law on limits of necessity.
European Influence: Civil law countries like France have codified necessity defenses under strict conditions, showing alignment with human dignity principles.
B. Procedural Safeguards
Canada: R. v. Oakes (1986)
Facts: Challenged the reverse onus provision of Narcotics Control Act.
Issue: Does this violate Charter Section 11(d) (presumption of innocence)?
Judicial Interpretation: Supreme Court established the Oakes test, which requires that laws infringing rights must have a pressing and substantial objective and be proportionate.
Impact: Strengthened procedural fairness in criminal law.
Europe: Salduz v. Turkey (2008, European Court of Human Rights)
Facts: A minor was interrogated without a lawyer and later convicted.
Issue: Violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the ECHR.
Judicial Interpretation: European Court emphasized access to legal counsel from the first interrogation.
Comparative Note: Canada similarly protects this through Section 10(b) of the Charter (right to counsel), showing convergence in procedural rights.
C. Punishment and Sentencing
Canada: R. v. Gladue (1999)
Facts: Sentencing of an Indigenous offender.
Issue: Should courts consider systemic disadvantages in sentencing?
Judicial Interpretation: Supreme Court ruled that judges must consider background factors affecting Indigenous peoples under Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.
Impact: Introduced restorative justice principles in sentencing.
Europe: M'Bala M'Bala Case (Belgium, 2006)
Facts: Addressed sentencing for racial hatred offenses.
Judicial Interpretation: Belgian courts consider societal impact and proportionality, ensuring punishment aligns with public interest while respecting human rights.
Comparative Note: European systems generally emphasize proportionality and rehabilitation, similar to Canada’s Gladue principles, but less focused on specific cultural remedies.
D. Human Rights and Criminal Law
Canada: R. v. Morgentaler (1988)
Facts: Criminalization of abortion challenged.
Issue: Violation of Section 7 (right to life, liberty, and security) of the Charter.
Judicial Interpretation: Supreme Court struck down restrictive abortion laws as unconstitutional.
Impact: Demonstrated Canadian courts’ proactive approach in aligning criminal law with human rights.
Europe: Pretty v. United Kingdom (2002, ECHR)
Facts: Terminally ill woman sought right to assisted suicide.
Issue: Whether Article 8 (right to private life) included right to die.
Judicial Interpretation: Court rejected the claim, emphasizing protection of life over autonomy.
Comparative Note: Canada’s Morgentaler decision is broader in recognizing personal liberty, whereas Europe (through ECHR) often balances rights against public policy.
E. Corporate and Economic Crimes
Canada: R. v. Imperial Tobacco (2011)
Facts: Corporate liability for marketing harmful products.
Judicial Interpretation: Courts clarified standards for corporate criminal responsibility, including duty of care and recklessness.
Europe: ENRON/Volkswagen EU Cases
European courts, especially under German law, impose strict corporate liability for economic crimes. EU directives reinforce accountability for environmental and consumer protection violations.
Comparative Note: Both systems focus on corporate accountability, but European law often uses administrative fines alongside criminal penalties, whereas Canada relies more on criminal prosecution.
3. Key Comparative Observations
| Feature | Canada | Europe (ECHR + Civil Law) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Tradition | Common Law + Codified Criminal Code | Civil Law (France, Germany) + ECHR oversight |
| Human Rights Protection | Charter of Rights & Freedoms | ECHR and national constitutions |
| Sentencing Philosophy | Restorative justice, cultural context | Proportionality, rehabilitation, public order |
| Defenses & Responsibility | Broad recognition of psychological factors | Strict codification, limited exceptions |
| Procedural Safeguards | Right to counsel, presumption of innocence | Access to counsel, fair trial under ECHR |
| Corporate Liability | Criminal prosecution focused | Administrative & criminal hybrid |
4. Conclusion
Similarities: Both systems prioritize human rights, procedural fairness, and proportionality in punishment.
Differences: Canada integrates cultural and social context (e.g., Indigenous sentencing) and uses common law reasoning, while European law is more codified, with supranational oversight (ECHR) influencing national criminal law.
Judicial Role: In both systems, courts bridge legislative policy and practical enforcement, ensuring criminal law evolves in line with societal values and fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
comments