What are Defences to Forcible Confinement?
Forcible confinement is a serious criminal offence under Canadian law. It involves the unlawful restriction of a person’s freedom of movement without their consent. The Criminal Code of Canada classifies this act under Section 279(2), and conviction can result in significant penalties, including imprisonment. However, not all accusations lead to a conviction. A number of legal defences may apply to individuals charged with this offence. Understanding the nature of forcible confinement and the possible defences is crucial for anyone involved in such a case—whether as an accused person, a lawyer, or a concerned family member.
In this blog, we will explore what constitutes forcible confinement, the elements required for a conviction, and the most common defences used in Canadian criminal law to counter such charges.
What Is Forcible Confinement?
Forcible confinement occurs when one person restricts another person’s movements without lawful authority or consent. Unlike kidnapping, it does not require movement or transportation of the victim—merely restraining or trapping someone is sufficient to qualify as forcible confinement. For example, locking someone in a room or tying them to a chair without their permission may be considered forcible confinement.
To secure a conviction, the Crown must prove:
- Intentional Restriction of Movement – The accused must have intentionally confined or physically restrained another person.
- Lack of Lawful Authority – There must be no legal justification for the confinement.
- Without Consent – The person who was confined did not agree to the restriction of their liberty.
Understanding these elements helps to clarify what kinds of actions might be considered unlawful and also lays the groundwork for identifying valid defences.
Common Defences to Forcible Confinement
When facing a charge of forcible confinement, several legal defences may be available, depending on the facts of the case. Here are the most recognized and frequently used defences in Canadian courts:
1. Lack of Intent
Forcible confinement is a specific intent offence, which means the prosecution must prove that the accused intended to confine the complainant. If the act was accidental, a misunderstanding, or lacked deliberate purpose, the accused may argue that there was no intent.
For example, if someone mistakenly locked a door, unaware that another person was inside and unable to exit, this could potentially serve as a defence. The burden is on the Crown to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any credible evidence to suggest a lack of intent, the charges may not hold up in court.
2. Consent
Consent is another powerful defence. If the alleged victim voluntarily agreed to remain in a room or location, or if they did not object to being confined at the time, it may be difficult to establish that the act was non-consensual.
For instance, in some domestic or social situations, one party might claim forcible confinement, while the other argues that the individual stayed voluntarily. As long as consent was not obtained by force, fraud, or intimidation, and the individual had the ability to withdraw consent, it may serve as a complete defence.
3. Lawful Authority
There are circumstances under which confinement is permitted by law. Examples include parents disciplining their children within reasonable bounds, law enforcement officers detaining individuals under proper legal procedures, or property owners preventing trespassers from escaping until police arrive.
If the accused was acting within a legal right or performing a lawful duty (such as making a citizen’s arrest), their actions may not be considered criminal. However, the force used must be proportionate and reasonable, otherwise the defence may fail.
4. Duress
Duress refers to a situation where the accused was forced to commit the crime due to threats of immediate harm to themselves or others. In such cases, the defence must prove that the threat was serious and left the accused with no safe avenue of escape or alternative.
Although not a common defence for forcible confinement, it may arise in cases where someone was coerced into restraining another person under threat of violence. Courts will examine whether the response was proportional to the threat and if the accused truly had no other option.
5. Mental Disorder
Under Section 16 of the Criminal Code, a person may not be held criminally responsible if, at the time of the offence, they were suffering from a mental disorder that made them incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of their actions.
This defence requires medical evidence and psychiatric evaluation. If successful, the accused is found “not criminally responsible” (NCR) and may be placed under the supervision of a mental health board rather than sentenced to jail.
6. Self-Defence
In rare situations, self-defence might apply if the accused confined another person to prevent an imminent threat to their own safety. For example, locking someone in a room to stop them from attacking may be seen as reasonable force under the circumstances.
The law allows individuals to protect themselves or others from harm using reasonable and proportionate measures. However, the onus is on the defence to demonstrate that the confinement was necessary and not excessive.
Evidentiary Issues and Witness Credibility
In many cases of alleged forcible confinement, there are no third-party witnesses. The court must often rely on the credibility of the complainant and the accused. A strong defence will focus on inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, lack of physical evidence, or alternative explanations for the situation.
The defence lawyer may present alibi evidence, surveillance footage, text messages, or witness testimony to cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events. In criminal trials, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a high threshold to meet. A single credible doubt can result in an acquittal.
Role of a Criminal Defence Lawyer
Navigating a forcible confinement charge is complex. Each defence requires a deep understanding of criminal law, careful analysis of evidence, and strategic courtroom skills. A knowledgeable defence lawyer will examine police reports, cross-examine witnesses, and develop a tailored legal strategy to protect the rights of the accused.
If you’re facing criminal charges, including forcible confinement, early legal advice is critical. To find legal representation, click here for criminal lawyers in Surrey BC.
Conclusion
Forcible confinement charges carry serious legal consequences, but a number of legal defences can be used to challenge these allegations. Whether based on lack of intent, consent, lawful authority, duress, mental illness, or self-defence, a successful argument can prevent a conviction or reduce sentencing.
It’s essential to remember that every case is unique. What works as a defence in one situation may not apply in another. The best course of action is to consult with an experienced criminal defence lawyer who can assess the facts, apply the law, and advocate effectively in court.
If you or someone you know is involved in a forcible confinement case, understanding your legal options and acting quickly can make all the difference in securing a favourable outcome.
