Trends in offences against the administration of justice

by Marta Burczycka and Christopher Munch

[Highlights] [Full article in PDF]

Skip to text

Text begins

Administration of justice offences include the Criminal Code violations of failure to comply with conditions, escape or help escape from custody, prisoner unlawfully at large, failure to appear, breach of probation, and other offences against the administration of justice (for example, impersonating a peace officer).Note 1 These offences are sometimes seen as the ‘revolving door’ of the justice system (Carrington and Schulenberg 2003), since by definition most of these types of crimes are committed when an individual disobeys a pre-trial condition or sentence imposed for a previous offence. Sentences such as probation or a requirement to abide by a condition continue to be those most commonly imposed by Canadian courts (Boyce 2013; Dauvergne 2013).

In recent years, the attention of the public and of agencies involved in criminal justice has been focused on the resources and related costs of the Canadian justice system. While the volume and severity of crime in Canada has been on the decline for more than 20 years (Boyce, Cotter and Perreault 2014), criminal justice expenditures have grown steadily (Story and Yalkin 2013; Hutchins 2015). As a result, identifying possible sources of inefficiencies as well as ways to reduce them has become an area of focus for the justice community and all levels of government (Public Safety Canada 2014).

Topics related to justice system spending and the search for efficiencies were explored at the 2014 multi-departmental Summit on the Economics of Policing (Public Safety Canada 2014). In an associated report to Parliament of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, offences against the administration of justice were identified as an area of potential inefficiency within the justice system (Parliament of Canada 2014). Experts testifying before the committee suggested that new strategies for how police and courts approach this type of offence – for example, chronic breaches of probation or other conditions imposed by the court – may be ground for cost-saving changes. At the provincial level, recent frameworks for justice system reform have also targeted administration of justice offences to increase overall system efficiency (for example, see BC Justice Reform Initiative 2012Note 2).

In this Juristat, the volume and nature of offences against the administration of justice reported by police and processed through the adult criminal courts are examined. These trends are compared with trends in overall police-reported crime. Provincial and territorial data are presented in order to examine trends at the jurisdictional level.

This analysis examines changes in police-reported offences against the administration of justice over time, together with variations in court case processing times and sentencing outcomes. The report also looks at the characteristics of persons accused of administration of justice offences. This Juristat presents data on incidents of offences against the administration of justice as reported by police services to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey, as well as data reported by Canadian adult courts to the Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS) (see Text box 1).

Start of text box

Text box 1
Most serious violations and most serious offences in police- and court-reported data

Most serious violations in the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey data

Because offences against the administration of justice rank relatively low in terms of their seriousness (see Wallace et al. 2009), some occurrences may not appear in the UCR aggregate data analysed in this Juristat. This is because an administration of justice offence may come to the attention of police during the investigation of an incident where other, more serious, violations also occurred. In such a scenario, it is the more serious violation (MSV) that would be reported to the UCR and reflected in the aggregate data. However, an analysis of the distribution of offences against the administration of justice in the 2014 UCR data shows that in incidents where these types of crime appeared, they were reported as the MSV 75% of the time (Text box Chart 1). As such, the analysis presented in this Juristat is based on the UCR aggregate data (unless otherwise stated), which reflect those incidents where an administration of justice offence represented the MSV in the incident reported by police. This approach allows for the use of data collected from each police service in Canada and allows for the analysis of longer-term trends.

Most serious offences in the Integrated Criminal Court Survey data

Many analyses that make use of ICCS data do so taking the Most Serious Offence approach, whereby a case that has more than one charge is represented by the charge with the "most serious offence" (MSO). The most serious offence is determined according to a set of factors. First, court decisions are considered and the charge with the most serious decision (for example, a finding of guilt) is selected. In cases where two or more charges result in a decision of the same severity, the type of sentence issued is also considered. While parts of the analysis presented in this report take the MSO approach, an additional approach is also used in order to present a more thorough review of cases that involve administration of justice offences. Known as the “any in the case” approach, cases that include at least one administration of justice offence are analysed, whether or not an administration of justice offence constitutes the MSO. Unless otherwise stated, the “any in the case” approach is used in the present analysis.

Text box chart 1

Description for text box chart 1

End of text box

Administration of justice offences represented one in ten police-reported crimes

In 2014, police reported 171,897 incidents of offences against the administration of justice, a rate of 484 incidents per 100,000 population, or about one-tenth of all Criminal Code violations (excluding traffic) reported by police (Table 1).

Despite several periods of fluctuation, the rate of police-reported offences against the administration of justice has declined over the past decade. Between 2004 and 2014, the rate of this type of offence saw an overall decrease of 7% (Chart 1). This decline was much smaller than the decrease in Canada’s overall police-reported crime rate, which fell by 34% between 2004 and 2014 and included decreases to both the rate of police-reported violent crimes and the rate of police-reported property crimes. While the rates of violent crime and property crime continue to be higher than the rate of offences against the administration of justice, the gap between them has narrowed over the past decade.

Chart 1

Description for chart 1

While the rate of offences against the administration of justice declined slightly between 2004 and 2014, this category of offence continued to increase as a proportion of overall reported crime (Chart 2). As a proportion of all crime, offences against the administration of justice increased from 7% in 2004 to 10% in 2014.Note 3 In comparison, property crime – the most common type of police-reported crime - decreased from 67% to 61% of all reported incidents of crime over this same period of time.

Chart 2

Description for chart 2

Rate of failure to comply with conditions increased since 2004

While there was an overall decline in offences against the administration of justice between 2004 and 2014, the rate of the specific offence of failure to comply with conditions increased (up 8%) (Chart 3). Failure to comply with conditions,Note 4 which includes infractions such as violation of no-contact orders and failure to attend court-mandated programs (for example, addictions counselling or victim impact education programs) was the most commonly reported offence against the administration of justice, making up more than half (57%) of all incidents of this type of crime reported in 2014.Note 5

Chart 3

Description for chart 3

Breach of probation was the second most frequently-reported offence against the administration of justice in 2014, representing almost a quarter (22%) of all offences in this category. Since 2004, the rate of breach of probation declined by 28%, moving from 149 incidents per 100,000 to 108 in 2014. Besides failure to comply with conditions, the only other administration of justice offence to see an increase over the past decade was prisoner unlawfully at large (up 28%). However, this relatively rare crime represented just 2% of all incidents of offences against the administration of justice and 0.2% of police-reported crimes overall.

In all provinces and territories, incidents of failure to comply with conditions comprised the largest proportions of offences against the administration of justice reported in 2014. Also in line with the national trend, breach of probation was the next most common administration of justice offence among all provinces and territories except for Saskatchewan and Alberta. In these two provinces, failure to appear was the second most frequently-reported offence against the administration of justice (Table 2).

Administration of justice offences often reported by police alongside assaults

Police services are able to report up to four violations that occur together within a single incident. Official crime statistics are reported based on the most serious violation in the incident, which is determined according to factors such as whether the crime occurred against a person or property, or the greatest penalty prescribed by law that can be applied to the violation. In other words, the over 170,000 incidents of offences against the administration of justice reported in 2014 represent incidents where those violations were the most serious (see Text Box 1).

However, offences against the administration of justice often occur in conjunction with other more serious crimes, and are reported by police as a second, third or fourth violation within the same incident. In 2014, an additional 50,730 or 3% of all police-reported incidents where an administration of justice offence was not the most serious violation included at least one violation of this type as an associated violation (Table 3). This included the 8% of violent crimes that involved an administration of justice offence as a second, third or fourth violation in the incident. The violent offences most commonly associated with administration of justice violations in this way were assault level 1, assault level 2 and uttering threats. A smaller proportion of incidents of property crime (2%) also involved an associated offence against the administration of justice.

One in five police-reported crimes in Saskatchewan was an administration of justice offence

The provinces and territories differ in how they address offences against the administration of justice. The extent to which police are involved in charging those accused of this kind of crime varies across jurisdictions and these differences can impact the statistics presented in this report. Only incidents reported by the police are captured by the UCR and reflected in the current analysis.

In most jurisdictions, the involvement of the police is not required for a charge of failure to comply with conditions or breach of probation to be laid. Such charges can be submitted directly by corrections personnel, probation officers or officers of the courts. Though the precise number of charges submitted in this way is not known, these processes inevitably result in a number of incidents of administration of justice violations not being reported to the UCR in these jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions report that particular administration of justice offences, such as prisoner unlawfully at large or escape custody, must always involve the police in order for a charge to be laid and would thus always result in the incident being collected by the UCR. Conversely, in the Northwest Territories, police are always involved when any offence against the administration of justice charge is laid against an accused.

In addition to these differences in procedure, some jurisdictions have agreements with police services whereby police actively pursue individuals who are in breach of a condition imposed by the courts. Alberta’s Priority Prolific Offender Program is an example of this approach.Note 6 In addition to these differences, the ways a particular jurisdiction responds to offences against the administration of justice are themselves subject to change over time.

With these considerations in mind, it is not surprising that Canadian provinces have historically shown substantial variation with respect to police-reported offences against the administration of justice. This variation continued in 2014, with the highest provincial rates of offences against the administration of justice being reported in Saskatchewan (2,041 incidents per 100,000 population) and Manitoba (810). Rates of offences against the administration of justice also tend to be particularly high in the northern regions of these two provinces (Allen and Perreault 2015). In contrast, Prince Edward Island reported the lowest rate of administration of justice offences (250).

In most provinces, offences against the administration of justice represented about one-tenth of overall police-reported crime. The most notable exceptions to this pattern were Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia (Chart 4). Saskatchewan reported the largest proportion of offences against the administration of justice relative to other police-reported crimes, with almost one-fifth (19%) of all reported incidents falling into this category. Meanwhile, in Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, less than 1 out of 18 police-reported incidents of crime (5%) constituted an offence against the administration of justice.

Chart 4

Description for chart 4

There were also notable provincial differences in the change in rates of administration of justice offences over time. Between 2004 and 2014, Newfoundland and Labrador’s rate of administration of justice offences increased by 14%. The next largest increase over this period was reported in Quebec, where the rate of this type of offence grew by 13%. In Prince Edward Island, the rate of reported offences against the administration of justice decreased by 40% between 2004 and 2014. The next greatest decline was 27%, reported in Manitoba. In comparison, all provinces reported decreases in the overall police-reported crime rate between 2004 and 2014.

The territories typically report higher rates of police-reported crime than the provinces, and this holds true for offences against the administration of justice. In 2014, rates of administration of justice offences recorded in the territories were higher than those reported by the provinces. Rates ranged from 2,448 incidents per 100,000 reported by police in the Northwest Territories, to a rate of 1,706 in Nunavut. Since 2004, Yukon has reported a 73% increase in the rate of this type of crime, while the rate in the Northwest Territories increased by 11%. Over this same period of time, Nunavut recorded a 20% decrease in the rate of police-reported offences against the administration of justice.

Rate of persons charged with administration of justice offences increasing

Criminal Code offences may be cleared by a variety of means, such as the laying of a charge or diversion to another program, or by departmental discretion which may involve warnings, cautions or referrals to community-based programs. Compared to other types of crime, offences against the administration of justice more often resulted in charges being laid against an accused. Various reasons may exist for this, including a desire among justice professionals formally document, and address, an accused person’s history of non-compliance with the law (Marinos 2006). In 2014, charges were laid against 91% of all persons accused of offences against the administration of justice, compared to 49% of those accused of Criminal Code incidents that did not include administration of justice offences (or offences reported by police under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (Table 4).

The rate of persons facing charges related to administration of justice offences increased between 2004 and 2014, while the rate of those charged in criminal incidents in general has declined. For administration of justice offences, the rate of persons charged increased by 8% over the decade to a rate of 429 per 100,000 population in 2014 (Table 5). Meanwhile, over the same time period, charges related to Criminal Code violations in general declined by 20%, to a rate of 1,425 charges per 100,000 population.

Rate of females charged with administration of justice offences growing faster than for males

Police-reported data show that charges against females accused of administration of justice offences are growing faster than charges against males. Between 2004 and 2014, the increase in the rate of females charged with offences against the administration of justice was five times greater than for males, rising by almost 21% since 2004 (Chart 5). Despite this increase, the rate of men charged with this category of offence continues to be considerably higher than for females. In 2014, the rate of males charged with offences against the administration of justice was 683 per 100,000, close to four times higher than what was reported for females (182). This distribution was similar to the reported difference in rates of males and of females charged with Criminal Code offences in general, though those rates have fallen three times faster for males charged than for females.

Chart 5

Description for chart 5

A particularly large increase in the rate of females charged with administration of justice offences was recorded for failure to attend court (+26%) and failure to comply with conditions (+21%) between 2004 and 2014. Over the same ten-year period, the rates of men charged with these offences changed by -1% and +3%, respectively.

Across Canada in 2014, males accused of an administration of justice offence were slightly more likely than females to face charges. Among male accused, 91% were formally charged, compared to 89% of females. The likelihood of charges facing men and women differed by province and territory, however. The largest difference between males and females charged was reported in British Columbia, where 77% of female accused faced charges compared to 86% of males. In contrast, the likelihood of facing charges for an administration of justice offence was the same for females and males in Saskatchewan (95% and 96% respectively).

More youth face charges for administration of justice offences than for other offence types

Beginning with its implementation in 2003, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) has established clear objectives for the use of extrajudicial measures for youth (Boyce, Cotter and Perreault 2014).Note 7 Under the YCJA, youth accused of criminal offences may be dealt with through informal extrajudicial measures, such as warnings, cautions or referrals to community programs, in place of charges. Additionally, the YCJA provides for more formal extrajudicial measures, called sanctions, that may be considered when less formal means are considered insufficient. These sanctions can be used pre- or post-charge. These extrajudicial measures apply to initial police contact with youth, as well as to alleged breaches of pre- and post-sentencing conditions.

Since the introduction of the YCJA, the proportion of youth dealt with by means other than a charge has continued to be higher than that of youth formally charged. In 2014, 55% of youth accused of Criminal Code offences in general were dealt with by other means, while the remaining 45% were formally charged by police (Boyce 2015). Compared to these overall rates, rates of youth charged with administration of justice offences are considerably higher: among youth accused of this offence type in 2014, 85% were subjected to formal charges instead of extrajudicial measures (Table 6).Note 8

Over time, the rate of youth facing charges has decreased across all Criminal Code offence types. Rates of youth charged with Criminal Code offences in general have decreased by 40% since 2004. When looking specifically at administration of justice offences, the rate of youth charged has decreased by 20% from 2004.

Male youth are subject to criminal charges at much higher rates than female youth. For Criminal Code offences in general, as well as for offences against the administration of justice in particular, rates of male youth charged were several times higher than those of female youth. In 2014, the rate for male youth charged with offences against the administration of justice was 591 per 100,000, while the rate for female youth was 256. The likelihood of being formally charged for an administration of justice offence (as opposed to facing extrajudicial measures or sanctions) was similar for male and female youth, with 88% of male youth and 85% of female youth accused facing charges.Note 9

Administration of justice offences in the courts

In Canada, criminal court statistics are collected by Statistics Canada through the Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS). According to the definition used by the ICCS, a case is comprised of one or more charges against an accused person or company which were processed by the courts at the same time and received a final decision (see Survey description section at the end of this report). In order to examine data from different parts of the justice system using a standard set of ideas and definitions, the ICCS makes use of a common offence classification framework that groups offences into 32 separate offence categories. Offences against the administration of justice are among these categories, and include specific offences like failure to comply with an order,Note 10 breach of probation, unlawfully at large, and other offences against the administration of justice (such as impersonating a peace officer).

Between the time that a charge is laid and the time that a court process begins, there is potential for formal and informal activity that impacts the case that is ultimately brought against an accused. Informal discussions between the police, the accused, defense counsel, and the Crown can result in a different set of charges than those which were originally laid. The introduction of new evidence, the dropping or amendment of charges, and plea bargaining are examples of these formal and informal practices.

Estimates from the legal community suggest that many criminal cases in Canada are partially or entirely modified by some type of pre-trial negotiation, in part to lessen the resource strain on the courts (Marinos 2006). Activity at this stage of the justice system process is not measured by either the UCR or the ICCS, and thus neither survey can shed light on the impact that these discussions have on administration of justice charges. Other studies, however, such as the qualitative research conducted by Marinos (2006) suggest that administration of justice offences are often viewed as particularly serious by Crown attorneys, and are often retained during plea negotiations even in favor of other charges.

Over one-third of all adult criminal court cases involve at least one administration of justice offence

Canadian adult criminal courts process a high volume of offences against the administration of justice. While this type of offence makes up about one out of every ten police-reported criminal incidents, administration of justice charges are involved in over one-third of completed adult criminal court cases. In 2013/2014, adult criminal courts in Canada completed 360,640 cases, of which 139,776 (or 39%) included at least one offence against the administration of justice among the charges (Table 7).

Over time, the volume of cases involving offences against the administration of justice has increased relative to criminal court cases in general. Between 2005/2006 and 2013/2014, the number of completed criminal cases that included at least one administration of justice offence grew by 6%, though the volume of these types of cases peaked in 2010/2011 and has declined since that time (Chart 6).

Chart 6

Description for chart 6

Failure to comply with an order charges most common among administration of justice offences in court cases

In completed adult criminal court cases where an administration of justice offence represented one or more of the charges, failure to comply with an order (50%) and breach of probation (33%) were those most frequently finalized by the courts in 2013/2014 (Table 8).Note 11 These proportions are consistent with the distribution of these types of violations as reported by police, and have changed little over time.Note 12

Between 2005/2006 and 2013/2014, cases involving the relatively low-volume charge of prisoner unlawfully at large grew by 40%. Cases where failure to comply with an order were among the charges grew by 25%, while breach of probation also increased among completed adult criminal cases (+21%). Over this same time period, instances of failure to appear decreased by almost one-fifth (-19%).

About half of criminal cases in Manitoba, Yukon and Saskatchewan involved at least one administration of justice charge

In 2013/2014, completed adult criminal court cases involving at least one administration of justice charge represented about half of cases in Manitoba (56%), Yukon (53%) and Saskatchewan (50%).Note 13 Conversely, adult criminal courts in Quebec and Prince Edward Island reported smaller proportions of cases involving this type of offence (32% and 33%, respectively).

Between 2005/2006 and 2013/2014, most provinces and territories reported an increase in the proportion of adult criminal cases that included at least one offence against the administration of justice, in keeping with the national trend (up 4 percentage points). The largest growth over this time period was reported in British Columbia and Manitoba (up 11 and 10 percentage points, respectively). The sole province or territory that did not experience considerable growth in the proportion of completed criminal cases that included at least one administration of justice offence was Ontario, where the percentage of such cases increased by less than one percent.

Administration of justice offences most often paired with property crimes in criminal courts

Administration of justice charges are often processed by the courts alongside non-violent offences, and may or may not be the most serious offence (MSO) in the case.Note 14 In cases where an offence against the administration of justice is among the charges faced by an accused (but not the most serious offence), it is most often a property crime that constitutes the MSO. This pattern was evident in 31% of adult criminal court cases completed in 2013/2014 that included an administration of justice offence (Table 9). Also that year, 20% of cases related to violent offences also included charges for offences against the administration of justice. In 14% of cases where other Criminal Code charges such as those related to weapons, prostitution, and impaired driving were the MSO, administration of justice charges were also processed, as was the case in 13% of cases where the MSO was a drug-related crime.

Findings of guilt common in completed cases with administration of justice offences

Various options are available to judges and juries imposing decisions in adult criminal court cases. These decision types include findings of guilt, acquittals, charges being stayed or withdrawn, and other decisions (such as findings of not criminally responsible, the accused being found unfit for trial, and cases that raise Charter arguments).

More than three quarters (76%) of completed court cases that included at least one administration of justice offence resulted in a guilty verdict in 2013/2014. This compared to the 55% of completed cases that did not include any administration of justice offences where decisions of guilt were handed down. Over time, all other kinds of decisions handed down in cases that included offences against the administration of justice have remained virtually unchanged (Table 10).

Second to decisions of guilt, most other completed cases that included offences against the administration of justice in 2013/2014 resulted in charges being stayed or withdrawn (21%). Acquittals were comparatively rare, being recorded in just 2% of completed cases where an administration of justice offence was among the charges. By comparison, 5% of completed adult criminal court cases that did not include any administration of justice charges resulted in acquittals.

Custody most frequently imposed sentence in cases with administration of justice offences

In 2013/2014, custody was the most common sentence handed down in completed adult criminal court cases involving administration of justice offences that resulted in findings of guilt (53%). This was in contrast to guilty cases that did not include offences against the administration of justice, for which custody was imposed 22% of the time (Chart 7). These findings are consistent with research that indicates Canadian criminal court judges often view custody as an appropriate sentence for administration of justice offences, in response to the accused person’s history of noncompliance with conditions and in order to communicate to the accused the need to respect orders of the court (Marinos 2006). The prevalence of custodial sentences in cases involving offences against the administration of justice increased slightly between 2005/2006 and 2013/2014 (up 3 percentage points).

Chart 7

Description for chart 7

The length of time it takes to complete a case in adult criminal court is defined as the elapsed time between the first court appearance to the date of decision or sentencing, measured in days. For completed adult criminal court cases that involved an offence against the administration of justice in 2013/2014, the median length of time it took to process the case was 108 days. This compares to the median 133 days it took to complete a case that did not include an administration of justice charge.

Between 2005/2006 and 2013/2014, median case processing times for cases involving offences against the administration of justice decreased by 5 days. Meanwhile, the median time to complete cases that did not involve this type of offence increased by 3 days over this same period of time. Overall, median case processing times for cases involving all offence types remained relatively stable since 2005/2006 (-1 day).

Men accused in 4 out of 5 cases involving administration of justice offences

Canadian criminal courts heard about four times more cases against male accused than females in 2013/2014, with men standing accused in 80% of cases.Note 15 This ratio was slightly more pronounced in cases where an offence against the administration of justice was among the charges, where 82% of all completed cases involved a male accused. Since 2005/2006, the proportion of completed criminal cases involving administration of justice charges where females stood accused increased slightly (up 3 percentage points).

The high proportion of completed court cases with male accused parallels the prevalence of men among accused charged in police-reported criminal incidents in general: in 2014, 78% of police-reported Criminal Code charges in general and 79% of administration of justice charges in particular were laid against male accused.

Summary

Offences against the administration of justice are most often the result of an offender’s earlier criminal behavior and prior interactions with the justice system, and in this way are sometimes seen as a ‘revolving door’ of crime. Understanding the volume and nature of this type of crime is important to understanding the pressures that may be affecting the justice system as a whole.

For Canada’s policing community, administration of justice offences represent about one tenth of all police-reported crime, and involve a relatively large proportion of individuals against whom charges are laid by police. The rate of persons formally charged with administration of justice offences is growing, especially among women, at a time when overall rates of persons charged with other kinds of crime continue to decline. The rate of persons charged with administration of justice offences was higher in 2014 than a decade ago, despite the decline in the actual rate of police-reported incidents of this type of crime.

Canada’s adult criminal courts must also devote resources to processing administration of justice cases. Over a third of all completed cases in 2013/2014 involved at least one administration of justice offence, and the proportion of cases that include this offence type has increased in comparison to 2005/2006. Findings of guilt are more common in cases involving administration of justice offences, and custody is more often the type of sentence imposed, suggesting further impacts on those elements of the justice system involved in corrections.

Survey description

Uniform Crime Reporting Survey

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey collects data from virtually 100% of police services in Canada. Information on incidents of crime is collected in two ways: in a microdata format, where details of up to four separate violations involved in an incident can be provided to Statistics Canada; and in an aggregated format, where only the most serious violation involved in the incident is reported. For example, an incident that involved a robbery, a physical assault and a threat counted in a microdata format would translate into one incident involving three violations. If this incident was captured in an aggregate format, only the most serious offence in the incident would be captured, creating a record of an incident of robbery. In order to ensure comparability, counts presented in this article are based upon the most serious offence in the incident, as determined by a standard classification rule used by all police services.

For more information about the UCR and its methodology, refer to http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3302.

Detailed data tables from the UCR are available through Statistics Canada CANSIM:

Table 252-0051 Incident-based crime statistics, by detailed violations, annual

Table 252-0052 Crime Severity Index and weighted clearance rates, annual

Integrated Criminal Court Survey

As of 2005/2006, all provincial and territorial courts in 10 provinces and 3 territories reported to the Integrated Criminal Court Survey (ICCS). Information from superior courts in Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well as municipal courts in Quebec could not be extracted from their electronic reporting systems and was therefore unavailable. A slight underestimation of the severity of sentences may have resulted from the absence of data from superior courts in these five jurisdictions, since these courts process some of those (most serious) cases which are likely to result in the most severe sanctions. There may also be a slight underestimation of case elapsed times as more serious cases generally require more court appearances and take more time to complete. However, since offences against the administration of justice are relatively less serious crimes, little underestimation due to the absence of superior court data is expected where these offences constitute the most serious offence in a case.

In addition, information on the sex of the accused is not available from Manitoba and may have a higher proportion of accused with unknown sex in Quebec, since the latter province derives this information from the name of the accused. Both Quebec and the Northwest Territories do not report conditional sentencing data at this time. Lastly, the number of custody orders in the Northwest Territories has been under-reported and the number of probation orders has been over-reported by unknown amounts due to clerical procedures. The majority of custody orders were captured as probation.

For more information about the ICCS and its methodology, refer to http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3312.

Detailed data tables from the ICCS are available through Statistics Canada CANSIM:

Table 252-0053 Adult criminal courts, number of cases and charges by type of decision, annual

Table 252-0055 Adult criminal courts, cases by median elapsed time in days, annual

Table 252-0056 Adult criminal courts, guilty cases by type of sentence, annual

Table 252-0057 Adult criminal courts, guilty cases by most serious sentence, annual

Detailed data tables

Table 1 Rate of police-reported offences against the administration of justice, Canada, 2004 to 2014

Table 2 Police-reported offences against the administration of justice, Canada, provinces and territories, 2004 and 2014

Table 3 Police-reported Criminal Code incidents involving at least one offence against the administration of justice, by most serious violation, Canada, 2014

Table 4 Police-reported incidents by presence of offences against the administration of justice, by incident clearance status, Canada, 2014

Table 5 Police-reported administration of justice charges laid or recommended, Canada, 2014

Table 6 Police-reported administration of justice charges laid or recommended against youth, Canada, 2014

Table 7 Completed adult criminal court cases, including and excluding offences against the administration of justice, Canada, provinces and territories, 2005/2006 to 2013/2014

Table 8 Completed adult criminal court cases, including at least one offence against the administration of justice, by type of charge, Canada, 2005/2006 to 2013/2014

Table 9 Completed adult criminal court cases, by most serious offence, Canada, 2005/2006 to 2013/2014

Table 10 Completed adult criminal court cases, by most serious decision, Canada, 2005/2006 to 2013/2014

References

Allen, Mary and Samuel Perreault. 2015. “Police-reported crime in Canada’s Provincial North and territories, 2013.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Boyce, Jillian. 2013. “Adult criminal court statistics in Canada, 2011/2012.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Boyce, Jillian. 2015.”Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2014”. Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Boyce, Jillian, Adam Cotter and Samuel Perreault. 2014. ”Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2013.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Carrington, Peter J. and Jennifer L. Schulenberg. 2003. Police Discretion with Young Offenders: Report to the Department of Justice Canada. (accessed January 5, 2015).

Dauvergne, Mia. 2013. “Youth court statistics in Canada, 2011/2012.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Hutchins, Hope. 2015. “Police resources in Canada, 2014.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X.

Marinos, Voula. 2006. “The meaning of ‘short’ sentences of imprisonment and offences against the administration of justice: A perspective from the court.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society. Vol. 21, no. 2. p. 143-167.

Parliament of Canada. 2014. Economics of Policing: Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. (accessed January 7, 2015).

Public Safety Canada. 2014. Economics of Policing. (accessed January 7, 2015).

Story, Rod and Tolga R. Yalkin. 2013. Expenditure Analysis of Criminal Justice in Canada. (accessed January 5, 2015).

Wallace, Marnie, John Turner, Colin Babyak and Anthony Matarazzo. 2009. Measuring Crime in Canada: Introducing the Crime Severity Index and Improvements to the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-004-X.

Appendix 1

List of offences against the administration of justice under the Criminal Code included in the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey
Table summary
This table displays the results of List of offences against the administration of justice under the Criminal Code included in the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. The information is grouped by Criminal Code C-46 RSC 1985 (1) (appearing as row headers), Description (appearing as column headers).
Criminal Code C-46 RSC 1985 (1) Description
145.(3-5.1ab) Failure to comply with conditions/appear, etc.
810.(3b) Fail/refuse recognizance – fear of injury/damage
810.01(4) Fail/refuse recognizance – fear of certain offences
810.1(3.1) Fail/refuse recognizance – fear of sexual offence
810.2(4) Fail/refuse recognizance – fear of serious injury
811.(ab) Breach of recognizance under S.810
   
144.(ab) Prison breach
145.(1a) Escape custody
   
145.(1b) Escape custody before term expires
   
145.(2ab) Failure to attend court
   
161.(4ab) Breach of probation order
733.1(1ab) Fail to comply probation order
753.3(1) Breach of long-term order
   
119.(1ab) Accept/offer bribe – judicial officer/MP/MLA
120.(ab) Accept/offer bribe - justice/police commissioner/peace officer
121.(1,2,3) Frauds upon government
122 Breach of trust by public officer
123.(1a-f) Corrupt municipal official
123.(2a-c) Influence municipal official
124.(ab) Selling/purchasing offices
125.(a-c) Deal/negotiate/solicit offices/appointments
126.(1) Disobeying a statute
127.(1ab) Disobeying order of court
128.(ab) Misconduct of officer in executing process
130.(1ab,2ab) Personating a peace officer
131.(1) Perjury
132 Perjury - general
134.(1) False statement in affidavit, etc.
136.(1) Giving contradictory evidence
137 Fabricating evidence
138.(a-c) Offences relating to affidavits
139.(1a-d) Obstruct justice
139.(2,3) Obstruct justice - other/judicial proceeding
140.(1a-d) Public mischief
140.(2ab) Public mischief to mislead peace officer
141.(1) Compounding indictable offence
142 Corruptly taking rewards
143.(a-d) Advertise reward and immunity
146.(a-c) Permit or assist escape
147.(a-c) Rescue or permit escape
148.(ab) Assist prisoner of war to escape

Appendix 2

List of offences against the administration of justice under the Criminal Code included in the Integrated Criminal Court Survey
Table summary
This table displays the results of List of offences against the administration of justice under the Criminal Code included in the Integrated Criminal Court Survey. The information is grouped by Criminal Code C-46 Rsc 1985 (1) (appearing as row headers), Description (appearing as column headers).
Criminal Code C-46 Rsc 1985 (1) Description
145.(2ab) Failure to attend court
   
733.1(1ab,2ab) Fail to comply probation order
740.(1,2) Priority to restitution
753.3(1,2) Breach of long-term order
   
144.(ab) Prison breach
145.(1ab) Escape custody/escape custody before term expires
   
145.(3ab) Failure to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance
145.(4ab) Failure to appear or to comply with summons
145.(5ab) Failure to comply with appearance notice or promise to appear
145.(5.1ab) Failure to comply with conditions of undertaking
145.(6) Idem for the purposes of subsection (5)
145.(8) Election of Crown under Contraventions Act
145.(9a-c) Proof of certain facts by certificate
145.(10) Attendance and right to cross-examination
145.(11) Notice of intention to produce
161.(1a-c, 1.1a-c, 2ab, 3) Order of prohibition
161.(4ab) Breach of probation order
811.(ab) Breach of recognizance under S.810
   
129.(ad, ae, bd, be, cd, ce) Offences relating to public or peace officer
119.(1ab, 2) Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
120.(ab) Accept/offer bribe - justice/police commissioner/peace officer
121.(1-3) Frauds upon government
122 Breach of trust by public officer
123.(1a-f) Corrupt municipal official
123.(2a-c, 3) Influence municipal official
124.(ab) Selling/purchasing offices
125.(a-c) Deal/negotiate/solicit offices/appointments
126.(1,2) Disobeying a statute
127.(1ab,2) Disobeying order of court
128.(ab) Misconduct of officer in executing process
129.(a-e) Obstruct peace officer/offences relating to public or peace officer
130.(1ab, 2ab) Personating a peace officer
131.(1,2,3) Perjury
132 Perjury - general
134.(1,2) False statement in affidavit, etc.
136.(1,2,2.1,3) Giving contradictory evidence
137 Fabricating evidence
138.(a-c) Offences relating to affidavits
139.(1a-d, ac, ad, bc, bd) Obstruct justice
139.(2,3a-c) Obstruct justice - other/judicial proceeding
140.(1a-d) Public mischief
140.(2ab) Public mischief to mislead peace officer
141.(1,2ab) Compounding indictable offence
142 Corruptly taking rewards
143.(a-d) Advertise reward and immunity
146.(a-c) Permit or assist escape
147.(a-c) Rescue or permit escape
148.(ab) Assist prisoner of war to escape

Notes

Date modified: