Probation and Parole Officers play a role in the criminal justice systems by supervising offenders released from prison or sentenced to non-custodial sanctions such as community service. In some jurisdictions probation and parole officers are involved in presenting reports on offenders and making sentencing recommendation to courts of law. Probation and parole officers in Australia serve an active role in recommending community based supervision to Magistrates/Judges, they make recommendations to parole boards to determine whether a prisoner should be granted parole. Probation officers are expected to not only supervise an offender while he/she performs community service, but to develop the community service plans themselves. Parole officers in Canada play a critical role at both the institutional and community levels, their primary function is to assess risk and manage the intervention process with offenders throughout their sentence. They are the first line of defense when administering the Correctional Service of Canada's obligations towards public safety.
Once the offender has entered the federal correctional system, parole officers assess the needs of offenders, such as their programming needs, the security risks they pose. Subsequently, offenders are matched with selected institutional services such as rehabilitation programs; this includes identifying the factors contributing to criminal behavior, developing intervention plans to address them, helping offenders to undertake and complete those intervention plans. At the institutional level, parole officers make recommendations concerning offender transfers, temporary absences, other forms of conditional release, including parole release as part of reintegrating offenders into society. Parole officers work as part of a team which includes the offender, correctional officer, community parole officer and programs officer. In the community, parole officers ensure public safety by making scheduled or unscheduled visits with offenders, communicating with family, employers as well as other persons who may be assisting the offender.
Other duties include writing progress reports and working with many community agencies to help secure stable housing and income. Probation Orders were introduced by the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, the practice of placing offenders on probation was routinely undertaken in the London Police Courts by voluntary organizations such as the London Police Court Mission known as the Rainer Foundation, These earlier probation services provided the inspiration for similar ideas in the humane treatment and supervision of offenders throughout the British Empire and in former colonies of Britain as missionaries and members of the British criminal justice system travelled the globe. In modern times the duties of probation officers in the U. K. are to supervise offenders released on licence from custody, to supervise offenders given non-custodial supervisory sentences at court. The work involves. Probation officers are charged with providing a variety of reports on offenders throughout their criminal justice lifecycle, such as pre-sentence reports making recommendations on interventions to reduce the likelihood of reoffending or of causing serious harm.
Such reports will provide assessments of the criminal, the nature of crimes and effect on victims, the criminogenic needs and risk of serious harm associated with the individual, will be based in part on an Offender Assessment System analysis. Probation officers are responsible for the provision of regular reports to courts of the progress of offenders on orders having drug testing requirements. Additionally, probation officers will supervise a Restorative Justice plan that provides the victim of a crime an opportunity to address the impact of the crime to the offenders. Probation officers do not have law enforcement powers; however they have a duty to report prison offenders released from custody on licence if licence conditions are breached. The English & Welsh system has two levels of officer, the Probation Officer, the Probation Service Officer - the latter will have less training than the former, will be limited to supervising offenders at low and medium risk of serious harm. Malta has its own Probation Services that form part of the Department of Correctional Services within the Ministry of Justice & Home Affairs.
The Probation Services has been in existence since 1957 and the first Probation Order was granted in 1961. There is no Parole as yet in Malta, however earlier this year a bill introducing parole has been presented in parliament; the Maltese Probation Services gives services both at the pre-sentencing and post sentencing stages in accordance to the Probation Act. Services include Probation Order, Suspended Sentence Supervision Order, Community service order, Combination Order, Provisional Order of Supervision, Pre Sentencing Report, & Social Inquiry Report. Probation in Thailand
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by non qui negat. In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact; the trier of fact is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, in civil proceedings both sides must issue proof; the sixth-century Digest of Justinian provides, as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies".
It is there attributed to third century jurist Paul. It was introduced in Roman criminal law by emperor Antoninus Pius. Similar to that of Roman law, Islamic law holds the principle that the onus of proof is on the accuser or claimant based on a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi. "Suspicion" is highly condemned, this from a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi as well as Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. After the time of Muhammad, the fourth Caliph Ali ibn Abi Thalib has been cited to say, "Avert the prescribed punishment by rejecting doubtful evidence." After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the West began to practice feudal law, a synthesis of aspects of Roman law as well as some Germanic customs according to the new elite, including presumed guilt. For instance, the accused could prove his innocence by having twelve people swear that he could not have done what he was accused of. In practice, this tended to favor the nobility over the lower classes, whose witnesses risked being seen as less credible.
Following the aforementioned Roman law of Justinian, who lived at the dawn of the medieval era, the Eastern Roman Empire continued along his legal code which includes presumption of innocence. This influenced nearby states within its cultural sphere, such as Orthodox, Slavic principalities like Serbia; the maxim or its equivalent has been adopted by many civil law systems, including Brazil, China,France, Philippines, Poland and Spain. "Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused bears no burden of proof. This is expressed in the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", coined by the British barrister Sir William Garrow during a 1791 trial at the Old Bailey. Garrow insisted. An objective observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the defendant certainly committed the crime. In 1935, in its judgment of Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions, the English Court of Appeal would describe Garrow's articulation as being the'golden thread' connecting both the criminal burden of proof and the presumption of innocence within the web of English criminal law.
The presumption of innocence was expressed by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine in the phrase "item quilbet presumitur innocens nisi probetur nocens", based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. However, this referred not to the fact that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution in a criminal case, but the protections which a defendant should be given: prior notice of the accusation being made against them, the right of confrontation, right to counsel, etc, it is considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained, a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials; the presumption means: With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.
With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them; the jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case on evidence presented during the trial; this duty on the prosecution was famously referred to as the “golden thread” in the criminal law by Lord Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP: Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen—that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have said as to the defence of insanity and subject to any statutory exception... This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in thei
Miscarriage of justice
A miscarriage of justice known as a failure of justice, is when an innocent person is found guilty. It is used as a legal defense in criminal and deportation proceedings; the term applies to errors in the other direction—"errors of impunity", or to any unjust outcome in any civil case. Every "miscarriage of justice" in turn is a "manifest injustice." Most criminal justice systems have some means to overturn or quash a wrongful conviction, but this is difficult to achieve. In some instances a wrongful conviction is not overturned for several decades, or until after the innocent person has been executed, released from custody, or has died. "Miscarriage of justice" is sometimes used to describe any wrongful conviction when the defendant may be guilty, for example in reference to a conviction reached as the result of an unfair or disputed trial. While a miscarriage of justice is a Type I error for falsely identifying culpability, an error of impunity would be a Type II error of failing to find a culpable person guilty.
However, the term "miscarriage of justice" is used to describe the latter type as well. With capital punishment decreasing, the expression has acquired an extended meaning, namely any conviction for a crime not committed by the convicted person. Wrongful convictions are cited by death penalty opponents as cause to eliminate death penalties to avoid executing innocent persons. In recent years, DNA evidence has been used to clear many people falsely convicted; the term travesty of justice is sometimes used for a gross, deliberate miscarriage of justice. Show trials, due to their character lead to such travesties; the concept of miscarriage of justice has important implications for standard of review, in that an appellate court will only exercise its discretion to correct a plain error when a miscarriage of justice would otherwise occur. The Scandinavian languages have a word, the Swedish variant of, justitiemord, which translates as "justice murder". Slavic languages use a different word, but it is used for judicial murder, while miscarriage of justice is "justiční omyl" in Czech, implying an error of the justice system, not a deliberate manipulation.
The term was used for cases where the accused was convicted and cleared after death. Causes of miscarriages of justice include: Plea bargains that offer incentives for the innocent to plead guilty, sometimes called an innocent prisoner's dilemma Confirmation bias on the part of investigators Withholding or destruction of evidence by police or prosecution Fabrication of evidence or outright perjury by police, or prosecution witnesses Biased editing of evidence Prejudice against the class of people to which the defendant belongs Misidentification of the perpetrator by witnesses and/or victims Overestimation/underestimation of the evidential value of expert testimony Contaminated evidence Faulty forensic tests False confessions due to police pressure or psychological weakness Misdirection of a jury by a judge during trial Perjured evidence by the real guilty party or their accomplices Perjured evidence by the alleged victim or their accomplices Conspiracy between court of appeal judges and prosecutors to uphold conviction of the innocent Fraudulent conduct by a judge: Judicial MisconductA risk of miscarriages of justice is one of the main arguments against the death penalty.
Where condemned persons are executed promptly after conviction, the most significant effect of a miscarriage of justice is irreversible. Wrongly executed people occasionally receive posthumous pardons—which void the conviction—or have their convictions quashed. Many death penalty states hold condemned persons for ten or more years before execution, so that any new evidence that might acquit them will have had time to surface; when a wrongly convicted person is not executed, years in prison can have a substantial, irreversible effect on the person and their family. The risk of miscarriage of justice is therefore an argument against long sentences, like a life sentence, cruel prison conditions. Various studies estimate that in the United States, between 2.3 and 5% of all prisoners are innocent. One study estimated that up to 10,000 people may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year. A 2014 study estimated that 4.1% of inmates awaiting execution on death row in the United States are innocent, that at least 340 innocent people may have been executed since 1973.
According to Professor Boaz Sangero of the College of Law and Business in Ramat Gan in Israel, most wrongful convictions are for crimes less serious than major felonies such as rape and murder, as judicial systems are less careful in dealing with those cases. Wrongful convictions appear at first to be "rightful" arrests and subsequent convictions, include a public statement about a particular crime having occurred, as well as a particular individual or individuals having committed that crime. If the conviction turns out to be a miscarriage of justice one or both of these statements is deemed to be false. During this time between the miscarriage of justice and its correction, the public holds false beliefs about the occurrence of a crime, the perpetrator of a crime, or both. While the public audience of a miscarriage of justice varies, they may in some cases be as large as an entire nation or multitude of nations. In cases where a large-scale audience is unknowingly witness
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a panel of judges makes all decisions. Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in all common law lawful systems, juries or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. Only the United States makes routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. Other common law legal jurisdictions use jury trials only in a select class of cases that make up a tiny share of the overall civil docket, but true civil jury trials are entirely absent elsewhere in the world; some civil law jurisdictions, have arbitration panels where non-legally trained members decide cases in select subject-matter areas relevant to the arbitration panel members' areas of expertise. The availability of a trial by jury in American jurisdictions varies; because the United States legal system separated from that of the English one at the time of the American Revolution, the types of proceedings that use juries depends on whether such cases were tried by jury under English common law at that time rather than the methods used in English courts now.
For example, at the time, English "courts of law" tried cases of torts or private law for monetary damages using juries, but "courts of equity" that tried civil cases seeking an injunction or another form of non-monetary relief did not. As a result, this practice continues in American civil laws, but in modern English law, only criminal proceedings and some inquests are to be heard by a jury; the use of jury trials, which evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems, has had a profound impact on the nature of American civil procedure and criminal procedure rules if a bench trial is contemplated in a particular case. In general, the availability of a jury trial if properly demanded has given rise to a system in which fact finding is concentrated in a single trial rather than multiple hearings, appellate review of trial court decisions is limited. Jury trials are of far less importance in countries. Ancient Athens had a mechanism, called dikastaí, to assure that no one could select jurors for their own trial.
For normal cases, the courts were made up of dikastai of up to 500 citizens. For capital cases—those that involved death, loss of liberty, loss of civil rights, or seizure of property—the trial was before a jury of 1,001 to 1,501 dikastai. In such large juries, they rule by majority. Juries were appointed by lot. Jurists cast a ceramic disk with an axle in its middle: the axle was either hollow or solid, thus the way they voted was kept secret because the jurists would hold their disk by the axle by thumb and forefinger, thus hiding whether its axle was hollow or solid. Since Periclean times, jurists were compensated for their sitting in court, with the amount of one day's wages; the institution of trial by jury was ritually depicted by Aeschylus in the Eumenides, the third and final play of his Oresteia trilogy. In the play, the innovation is brought about by the goddess Athena, who summons twelve citizens to sit as jury; the god Apollo takes part in the trial as the advocate for the defendant Orestes and the Furies as prosecutors for the slain Clytemnestra.
In the event the jury is split six to six, Athena dictates that in such a case, the verdict should henceforth be for acquittal From the beginning of the republic and in the majority of civil cases towards the end of the empire, there were tribunals with the characteristics of the jury, the Roman judges being civilian and not professional. Capital trials were held in front of juries composed of hundreds or thousands of people in the commitias or centuries, the same as in Roman trials. Roman law provided for the yearly selection of judices, who would be responsible for resolving disputes by acting as jurors, with a praetor performing many of the duties of a judge. High government officials and their relatives were barred from acting as judices, due to conflicts of interest; those found guilty of serious crimes were barred as were gladiators for hire, who were hired to resolve disputes through trial by combat. The law was as follows: "The peregrine praetor within the next ten days after this law is passed by the people or plebs shall provide for the selection of 450 persons in this State who have or have had a knight's census... provided that he does not select a person, or has been plebeian tribune, triumvir capitalis, military tribune in any of the first four legions, or triumvir for granting and assigning lands, or, or has been in the Senate, or who has fought or shall fight as a gladiator for hire... or, condemned by the judicial process and a public trial whereby he cannot be enrolled in the Senate, or, less than thirty or more than sixty years of age, or who does not have his residence in the city of Rome or within one mile of it, or, the father, brother, or son of any above-described magistrate, or, the father, brother, or son of a person, or has been a member of the Senate, or, overseas."
A Swabian ordinance of 1562 called for the summons of jurymen, various methods were in use in Emmendingen and Oberkirch. Hauenstein's charter of 1442 secured the right to be tried in all cases by 24 fellow equals, in Friburg the jury was composed of 30 citizens and councilors; the modern jury trial was first introduced in the Rhenish provinc
An execution warrant is a writ that authorizes the execution of a judgment of death on an individual. An execution warrant is not to be confused with a "license to kill", which operates like an arrest warrant but with deadly force instead of arrest as the end goal. In the United States either a judicial or executive official designated by law issues an execution warrant; this is done when a person, in trial court proceedings, has been sentenced to death, after trial and conviction, after appeals are exhausted. When a death warrant is signed and an execution date is set, the condemned person is moved from his or her death row cell to a death watch cell, located adjacent to the execution chamber; the government agency charged with carrying out an execution the state's Department of Corrections or the U. S. Bureau of Prisons in federal cases, has a limited time frame about 60 days, from the date the warrant is signed, to complete the execution process, or the warrant expires and the condemned person is returned to the death row cell, where he or she will await another execution date.
Stays of execution can be ordered in state cases by the Governor of the state, a trial court, a state appeals court or state Supreme Court or a court in the federal judiciary. In federal death penalty cases the trial court, appeals courts, the United States Supreme Court and President may grant a stay of execution. In all cases, the stay may be issued at any time when the condemned is being prepared for execution. UKP. "Death Warrant of King Charles I". British Parliament. Retrieved 28 February 2018. UNESCO. "2011 UK Memory of the World Register". UNESCO. Retrieved 28 February 2018
A curfew is an order specifying a time during which certain regulations apply. It refers to the time when individuals are required to return to and stay in their homes; such an order may be issued by public authorities but by the head of a household to those living in the household. For instance, an au pair is given a curfew, which regulates when they must return to the host family's home in the evening; the word "curfew" comes from the French phrase "couvre-feu", which means "fire cover". It was adopted into Middle English as "curfeu", which became the modern "curfew", its original meaning refers to a law made by William The Conqueror that all lights and fires should be covered at the ringing of an eight o'clock bell to prevent the spread of destructive fire within communities in timber buildings. An order issued by the public authorities or military forces requiring everyone or certain people to be indoors at certain times at night, it can be imposed to suppress targeted groups. Curfews have long been directed at certain groups in many cities or states, such as Japanese-American university students on the West Coast of the United States during World War II, African-Americans in many towns during the time of Jim Crow laws, or people younger than a certain age in many towns of the United States since the 1980s.
An order by the legal guardians of a teenager to return home by a specific time in the evening or night. This may apply daily, or vary with the day of the week, e.g. if the minor has to go to school the next day. An order by the head of household to a domestic assistant such as an au pair or nanny; the domestic assistant must return home by a specific time. A daily requirement for guests to return to their hostel before a specified time in the evening or night. In baseball, a time after which a game must end, or play be suspended. For example, in the American League the curfew rule for many years decreed that no inning could begin after 1 am local time. In aeronautics, night flying restrictions may restrict aircraft operations over a defined period in the nighttime, to limit the disruption of aircraft noise on the sleep of nearby residents. Notable examples are the London airports of Heathrow and Stansted, which operate under the Quota Count system. In a few locations in the UK patrons of licensed premises may not enter after a "curfew" time known as "last orders".
In Inverclyde for example this is set at 12:00 am. On 28 January 2011, following the collapse of the police system, President Hosni Mubarak declared a country-wide military enforced curfew. However, it was ignored by demonstrators. Concerned residents formed neighborhood vigilante groups to defend their communities against looters and the newly escaped prisoners. On the second anniversary of the revolution, January 2013, a wave of demonstrations swept the country against President Mohamed Morsi who declared a curfew in Port Said, Ismaïlia, Suez, three cities where deadly street clashes had occurred. In defiance, the locals took to the streets during the curfew, organizing football tournaments and street festivals, prohibiting police and military forces from enforcing the curfew. Under Iceland's Child Protection Act, children aged 12 and under may not be outdoors after 20:00 unless accompanied by an adult. Children aged 13 to 16 may not be outdoors after 22:00, unless on their way home from a recognized event organized by a school, sports organization or youth club.
During the period 1 May to 1 September, children may be outdoors for two hours longer. Children and teenagers that break curfew are taken to the local police station and police officers inform their parents to get them; the age limits stated here shall be based upon year of birth, not date of birth. If a parent cannot be reached, the child or teenager is taken to a shelter. In Sri Lanka, the Sri Lanka Police are empowered to declare and enforce a Police Curfew in any police area for any particular period to maintain the peace and order. Under the emergency regulations of the Public Security Ordinance, the President may declare a curfew over the whole or over any part of the country. Travel is restricted, during a curfew, to authorised persons such as police, armed forces personal and public officers. Civilians may gain a Curfew Pass from a police station to travel during a curfew; the United Kingdom's 2003 Anti-Social Behaviour Act created zones that allow police from 9 PM to 6 AM to hold and escort home unaccompanied minors under the age of 16, whether badly behaved or not.
Although hailed as a success, the High Court ruled in one particular case that the law did not give the police a power of arrest, officers could not force someone to come with them. On appeal the court of appeal held that the act gave police powers to escort minors home only if they are involved in, or at risk from, actual or imminently anticipated bad behaviour. In a few towns in the United Kingdom, the curfew bell is still rung as a continuation of the medieval tradition where the bell used to be rung from the parish church to guide travelers safely towards a town or village as darkness fell, or when bad weather made it difficult to follow trackways and for the villagers to extinguish their lights and fires as a safety measure to combat accidental fires; until 1100 it was against the law to burn any lights after the ringing of the curfew bell. In Morpeth, the curfew is rung each night at 8pm fro
A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense, as if the act never occurred. The pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction. Pardons can be granted in many countries when individuals are deemed to have demonstrated that they have "paid their debt to society", or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them. Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim that they were wrongfully convicted. In some jurisdictions of some nations, accepting a pardon may implicitly constitute an admission of guilt. Cases of wrongful conviction are nowadays more dealt with by appeal rather than by pardon. Clemency plays a important role when capital punishment is applied. Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone, seen as wrongly convicted.
Pardons can be a source of controversy. In extreme cases, some pardons may be seen as acts of corruption by officials in the form of granting effective immunity as political favors; the Parole Board of Canada is the federal agency responsible for making pardon decisions under the Criminal Records Act. Under the CRA, the PBC can issue, grant and revoke pardons. In 2012, the Parliament of Canada passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which changed a number of elements regarding the criminal justice system; the Act replaced the term "pardon" with "record suspension", the pardon system was changed. A pardon keeps a judicial record of a conviction separate and apart from other criminal records, gives law-abiding citizens an opportunity to reintegrate into Canadian society; the CRA removes all information about the conviction for which an individual received the pardon from the Canadian Police Information Centre. Federal agencies cannot give out information about the conviction without approval from the Minister of Public Safety Canada.
A pardon does not, erase the fact that an individual was convicted of a crime. The criminal record is not erased. A pardon removes disqualifications caused by a criminal conviction, such as the ability to contract with the federal government, or eligibility for Canadian citizenship. If an individual in receipt of a pardon is convicted of a new offence, the information may lead to a reactivation of the criminal record for which the pardon was received in CPIC. A pardon does not guarantee visa privileges to another country. Before travelling to another country, individuals must still contact the authorities of the country in question to find out what the requirements are to enter that country. Processing of pardons by the Parole Board of Canada takes six months for a summary offence and 12 months for an indictable offence. If the Parole Board proposes to deny the application, it can take 24 months to process. Individuals can apply for a pardon if they were convicted as an adult of a criminal offence in Canada, or of an offence under a federal act or regulation of Canada, or if they were convicted of a crime in another country and were transferred to Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer of Offenders Act.
Non-Canadian citizens are not eligible for a Canadian pardon unless they were convicted of a crime in Canada. To be eligible for a pardon or record suspension, individuals must have completed all of their sentences and a waiting period. Individuals are considered to have completed all of their sentences if they have: Paid all fines, costs and compensation orders Served all sentences of imprisonment, conditional sentences, including parole or statutory release Completed their probation orderPrior to 2012, following completion of all of their sentences, individuals must have completed a waiting period, as follows: 3 years for summary convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation, except sexual crimes against children 3 years under the National Defence Act, if fined $2,000 or less, detained or imprisoned 6 months or less, or subjected to various lesser punishments for a service offence 5 years for indictable convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation and summary convictions of sexual crimes against children 5 years for all convictions by a Canadian offender transferred to Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer of Offenders Act 5 years under the National Defence Act, if you were fined more than $2,000, detained or imprisoned more than 6 months, or dismissed from service 10 years for indictable convictions for sexual crimes against children and criminals receiving more than 2 years of imprisonment time for "serious personal injury offence" such as manslaughter or other designated offence under section 752 of the Criminal Code.
Effective 13 March 2012, the eligibility criteria and waiting periods changed: 5 years for summary convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation, except sexual crimes against children 5 years under the National Defence Act, if fined $2,000 or less, detained or imprisoned 6 months or less, or subjected to various lesser punishments for a service offence 10 years for indictable convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation and summary convictions of sexual crimes against children 10 years for all convictions by a Canadian offender transferred to Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer of O