Straddling the Liminal Space Section 810.01(3) Recognizance: Preventative Justice or Preventing Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper inquires into the constitutionality of the section 810.01 "fear of terrorism" offence that was introduced into the Criminal Code under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 amendments. Ordinarily, criminal justice and sentencing intersect at the punishment of offenders for crimes they have committed. However, post 9/11, in reaction to the fear of terrorism, the focus has shifted from punishing past crimes to crime prevention. That is, certain preventative measures may be imposed in the absence of a charge, trial or conviction. Arguably, the power to detain or control the movements of persons without charging them challenges the so-called sacrosanct nature of the rule of law. This paper will unfold in three parts. Part one outlines the legal framework related to preventative recognizances and the fear of terrorism offence in the Criminal Code. Part two surveys the case law and considers constitutional questions evoked by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with particular attention paid to the tension between section 810.01(3) recognizances and the presumption of innocence, arbitrary detention and the right to remain silent, criminal procedure and the rule of law. Part three unpacks the preventative/punitive dichotomy which is the rationale upon which section 810.01(3) recognizances are justified, by arguing that rather than a preventative provision, they are punitive since, arguably, they criminalize behaviour that is otherwise legal. This is a departure from the position taken by the Supreme Court of Canada.\nDisclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are the author's own and do not represent the views of her current employer, the Department of Justice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".