A term you may have seen in the media regarding court prosecutions in Canada is “public interest.” Within law enforcement, we also utilize that term, which takes the general public as a whole into account when making certain decisions.
Read more: Word on the beat: Traffic violation tips
This concept can be difficult to define because it is used by various groups and institutions, but I will try my best to describe what it means within law enforcement and the legal system.
The “interest” part of the phrase is the more difficult piece to define. Essentially, it refers to something impacting the well-being or welfare of the general public.
The term is also used as a point of comparison to weigh the seriousness or impact of one thing over another.
Within the legal system, this can amount to a judgment call based on experience and past cases, but it also considers current—and possibly local—interests. (I apologize to my past English teachers who taught me never to use the words you are defining in the definition).
By my count, the term public interest is referenced 48 times in the current version of the Criminal Code. However, none of these references define it.
Although left undefined, it is a key component in many sections where a great deal weighs on the determination of the public interest.
Section 495 of the Criminal Code is where a police officer’s authority to arrest without a warrant is granted.
The term public interest is used in this section as a limitation on that arrest authority.
Probably the easiest way to explain this is to provide a couple of examples showing how it is used to make decisions or meet requirements.
A trial judge may be presented with evidence of a serious crime. However, if a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was contravened by police during the arrest or subsequent dealings with the accused, a defence lawyer might successfully argue that the charges should be stayed or withdrawn due to the contravention.
The judge must weigh the impact of the Charter breach against the seriousness of the charges facing the accused. Generally, the less serious the charges, the more likely they are to be thrown out.
Conversely, if the charge is a serious sexual assault, the judge has to weigh the Charter breach against the public interest impact of withdrawing the charges. The judge may decide that the Charter breach was not severe enough to throw the case out, allowing the prosecution to proceed.
Another example is when police request an arrest warrant for someone. Public interest is a crucial component here; we must ensure we provide reasonable grounds to believe that issuing the warrant is in the public’s best interest. Ultimately, police need to provide a rationale deemed reasonable as to why a warrant is necessary.
Like so many things in policing and the legal system, this is another area that is rarely black and white.
Staff Sgt. Jerry Nutbown is the NCO in charge of the Lloydminster RCMP detachment’s General Investigation Section. Stay tuned for future online columns from the Lloydminster RCMP.
Read more: Word on the beat: Risks to police officers
