Possession and Access of Child Pornography

From Criminal Law Notebook
This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2020. (Rev. # 95820)
Child Pornography
s. 163.1 of the Crim. Code
Election / Plea
Crown Election Hybrid / Indictable
summary proceedings must initiate within 12 months of the offence (786(2))
Jurisdiction Prov. Court

Sup. Court w/ Jury (*)
Sup. Court w/ Judge-alone (*)

* Must be indictable. Preliminary inquiry also available.
Summary Dispositions
Avail. Disp. Discharge (730)

Suspended Sentence (731(1)(a))
Fine (734)
Fine + Probation (731(1)(b))
Jail (718.3, 787)
Jail + Probation (731(1)(b))
Jail + Fine (734)

Conditional Sentence (742.1)
Minimum 6 months incarceration
Maximum 2 years less a day incarceration
Indictable Dispositions
Avail. Disp. same as summary
Minimum 1 year incarceration
Maximum 10 years incarceration (poss'n/access)
14 years incarceration (make/distr.)
Reference
Offence Elements
Sentence Digests

Overview

See also: Child Pornography (Offence)

Offence Wording

s. 163.1
[omitted (1), (2) and (3)]

Possession of child pornography

(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
Accessing child pornography

(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
Interpretation

(4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1) [accessing child pornography], a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.
[omitted (4.3), (5), (6) and (7)]
1993, c. 46, s. 2; 2002, c. 13, s. 5; 2005, c. 32, s. 7; 2012, c. 1, s. 17; 2015, c. 23, s. 7.
[annotation(s) added]

– CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)

Note up: 163.1(4), (4.1) and (4.2)

Proof of the Offence

Proving possession of child pornography under s. 163.1(4) should include:

  1. ☐ identity of accused as culprit
  2. ☐ date and time of the incident
  3. ☐ jurisdiction (incl. region and province)
  4. ☐ the culprit possessed images, videos or texts
  5. the images, videos or texts were child pornographic
  6. the culprit knew or was wilfully blind to the nature of the materials

Proving accessing of child pornography under s. 163.1(4.1) should include:

  1. ☐ identity of accused as culprit
  2. ☐ date and time of the incident
  3. ☐ jurisdiction (incl. region and province)
  4. ☐ the culprit obtained access to materials, either through a computer or otherwise
  5. the materials accessed were child pornographic
  6. the culprit knew or was wilfully blind to the nature of the materials

Possession

See also: Possession

The minimum requirements to prove personal possession of a file requires:[1]

  1. physical contact with the file;
  2. knowledge of the criminal character of the file; and
  3. a degree of control over the file.

As with all forms of possession, the Crown must prove knowledge and control.[2]

While constructive possession requires:[3]

  1. the accused have knowledge of the character of the object;
  2. the accused knowingly puts or keeps the object in a particular place; and
  3. the accused intends to have the object in the place for his "use of benefit" or that of another person.

Where an accused acknowledges ownership or physical possession of a computer then personal possession is at issue.[4]

Subject matter of possession

Possession of child pornography requires "possession of the underlying data files in some way". "Simply viewing images online" is not sufficient.[5]

What is being "possessed" to make out the offence is simply the file itself, not the image or depiction found within the file.[6]

Possession concerns the control of the underlying file and not the image or video depicted.[7] For that reason, it is not necessary that the accused actually have viewed the images/videos to be in possession of them.[8] It is only necessary that the accused be aware of the underlying illegal nature of the file stored on the computer.[9]

The accused begins their possession at the time that they initiate the download, not at the point where the download is complete.[10]

"Cached" files

The automatic storing of files as part of the computer's "cache" alone does not amount to possession. A person cannot be expected to know about the files that are stored there.[11] There may however be "rare cases" where possession can be found in cache files.[12]

Internet Browsing is Not Possession

Simply accessing websites or viewing images onscreen does not make out possession of those images.[13]

  1. ↑ R v Tresierra, 2006 BCSC 1013 (CanLII), BCJ No 1593, per D Smith J
    R v Garbett, 2010 ONSC 2762 (CanLII), 255 CCC (3d) 212, per Tulloch J, at para 42
    R v Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 253, per Fish J, at paras 14 to 16
  2. ↑ Morelli, ibid., at para 15 ("It is undisputed that knowledge and control are essential elements common to both.")
  3. ↑ Morelli, supra, at para 17
  4. ↑ e.g. Garbett, supra, at para 34
  5. ↑ Morelli, supra, at para 14
  6. ↑ Morelli, supra, at paras 24 to 26
    R v Panko, 2007 CanLII 41894 (ONSC), , 52 CR (6th) 378 [2007] OJ No 3826 (SCJ), per Newbould J
    R v Weir, 2001 ABCA 181 (CanLII), 95 Alta LR (3d) 225, per curiam
    R v Daniels, 2004 NLCA 73 (CanLII), 191 CCC (3d) 393, per Welsh JA
  7. ↑ Morelli, supra, at para 19
  8. ↑ Daniels, supra, at paras 12 to 14
  9. ↑ R v Beaver, 1957 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1957] SCR 531, per Cartwright J
  10. ↑ Daniels, supra, at paras 10 to 14
    Morelli, supra, at para 23
  11. ↑ R v Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 253, per Fish J, at para 36
  12. ↑ Morelli, ibid.
  13. ↑ Morelli, ibid., at paras 65 to 66 (“merely browsing a website or viewing images onscreen does not constitute possession.”)

Physical Contact

It is usually sufficient for the Crown to prove physical contact by establishing "that the material was on a computer with which the accused had contact, or to which the accused had access."[1] Mere possession of a computer, however, is not sufficient to establish all elements of personal possession.[2]

This element has been made out by inference where discs containing the files were found in a desk drawer of the accused's locked bedroom.[3]

  1. ↑ R v Braudy, 2009 CanLII 2491 (ON SC), per Stinson J, at para 47 ("It is merely required, in other words, to show that the material was on a computer with which the accused had contact, or to which the accused had access.")
  2. ↑ R v Cockell, 2013 ABCA 112 (CanLII), 299 CCC (3d) 221, per Bielby JA, at para 71
  3. ↑ see R v Love, 2011 ABPC 40 (CanLII), AJ No 108, per Philp J, at para 24

Knowledge

See also: Knowledge and Wilful Blindness

The elements of knowledge consist of two branches. The "accused must be aware that he or she has physical custody of the thing in question, and must be aware as well of what that thing is."[1]

The element of knowledge requires that the accused be aware of the "criminal character of the item."[2] This does not require that the accused be aware that the files meet the legal definition of child pornography, rather it only requires that they know of the "nature and contents" of the file.[3]

The fact that a file was found on a computer does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the user knew of the existence of the file, that it was ever viewed, that the user intended to view it, intended to save it, or did anything to cause it to be saved.[4]

Where the accused has viewed the materials, he becomes imbued with the knowledge of the files' contents.[5] Knowledge can be inferred on the basis of circumstantial evidence.[6]

It has been suggested that there is no real difference between knowing what is in a person's car or in his computer such that knowledge of the contents can be inferred for both.[7]

  1. ↑ R v Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 253, per Fish J, at para 16
  2. ↑ see R v Garbett, 2010 ONSC 2762 (CanLII), 255 CCC (3d) 212, per Tulloch J, at para 40
    R v Chalk, 2007 ONCA 815 (CanLII), 227 CCC (3d) 141, per Doherty JA, at para 18
  3. ↑ R v Garbett, 2008 ONCJ 97 (CanLII), [2008] OJ No 917, per MacDonnell J, at para 40
  4. ↑ Garbett, ibid., at para 24 ("the mere fact that an image was found on a computer’s hard drive does not lead inexorably to an inference that the user knew of its existence, or that the user had ever viewed it, intended to view it, intended to save it, or did anything to cause it to be saved. ") appealed to 2010 ONSC 2762 (CanLII), per Tulloch J
    R v Allart, 2009 BCSC 1949 (CanLII), per Bracken J, at para 56
  5. ↑ see Garbett (ONCJ), supra, at para 47
    Also R v Braudy, 2009 CanLII 2491 (ON SC), per Stinson J, at para 51
  6. ↑ e.g. R v Grey, 1996 CanLII 35 (ON CA), 28 OR (3d) 417, per Laskin JA
    Braudy, supra, at para 51 ("While [direct evidence of viewing] may be sufficient proof of knowledge, however, it is not strictly necessary. Knowledge may instead be inferred from circumstantial evidence")
  7. ↑ R v Missions, 2005 NSCA 82 (CanLII), 196 CCC (3d) 253, per Roscoe JA, at para 71
    R v Johannson, 2008 SKQB 451 (CanLII), 335 Sask R 22, per Gabrielson J, at para 44

Factors in Inferring Knowledge

Factors in favour of knowledge include:[1]

  • the accused's ownership of the computer[2]
  • history of the accused's frequent use of the computer[3]
  • elaborate filing system of the files[4]
  • presence of the files on the computer for an extended period of time
  • concealing the files in cryptic or obscure folder names or locations
  • use of secure wiping software
  • the use of settings that delete records of the user's activities
  • presence of user-created links to the folders containing the files
  • evidence of the accused's interest in the materials
  • websites visited from internet history[5]
  • the accused level of computer skills
  • use of search terms indicative of child pornography[6]
  • the number of child pornography files present on the computer[7]
  • evidence of child pornography on other devices owned or possessed by the accused, as well the number of devices total[8]
  • the presence of children's belongings[9]
  • file names suggestive of child pornography[10]

Factors in favour of unknowing possession include:[11]

  • the existence of a previous owner of the computer
  • multiple persons with access to the computer, in light of their familiarity with computers[12]
  • evidence of misleading files names causing inadvertent downloading
  • automated downloading while web-browsing
  • pop-up sites, spyware, viruses

Courts should look at indicators such as "ownership, access, and usage of the computers on which the electronic file is stored."[13] Knowledge in some cases can be inferred by simply establishing that the accused was the owner of the computer or even the last person to use the computer.[14]

Evidence can include links or icons on the desktop of the computer.[15]

While the existence of a previous owner is a factor to consider, it is not necessary for the Crown to disprove the existence of a previous owner to establish knowledge.[16]

Evidence of other people accessing the computer weighs against knowledge.[17]

The larger the number of transactions involving the files, the number of files present, the number of devices containing the files, the manner in which they were stored, and their file names will make inadvertent downloading less likely.[18]

While indicative file names can be misleading, when the number of files is large, the inference of knowledge will be stronger.[19]

Evidence of the accused's interest in child pornographic subject matters, either through forensic evidence or by external evidence such as a statement will tend towards establishing knowledge.[20]

User-created links found on the desktop that connected to folders containing child pornography was sufficient evidence to infer knowledge.[21]

Evidence of attempts to conceal the user's activities, such as with wiping software or setting that automatically delete the user's internet history.[22]

Where the internet browsing history is adduced, the Crown should also present evidence of the contents of the website to strengthen the inference.[23]

A person can be aware that they possess a computer or a storage device without being aware of their contents.[24]

File Location

Signs of attempts to conceal the files will be a factor in favour of intentional acquisition of files.[25]

The presence of an organized collection of child pornography images was enough to infer knowledge.[26]

Files that are in the unallocated clusters (having been deleted) may make the ability to infer knowledge diminished.[27]

Evidence of Means of File Acquisition

The question of how the files came to be on the computer is a major area of inquiry, particularly where possession is not well established by other evidence.

There generally are three relevant ways in which a file can get on a computer:[28]

  1. the accused downloaded it knowingly;
  2. the accused downloaded it unknowingly;
  3. a third party downloaded it, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Files can get on a computer from previous owner, another user, accidental download based on misleading file names, downloaded while web-browsing, pop-up sites, and spyware.[29] The courts should be cautious of these considerations, however, as inadvertent download does not eliminate the possibility of knowledge after the fact and where the evidence of inadvertence is limited, the presumption of the users intent will apply and establish knowledge.[30]

In some cases, the lack of evidence of file acquisition can raise a doubt on guilt as other persons may be responsible for putting the files on the computer.[31]

Physical Location

The location in which the device was found can lead to an inference of knowledge. The intimate nature of the bedroom will create a stronger inference of knowledge.[32]

  1. ↑ see cases discussed below for sources
  2. ↑ see R v Love, 2011 ABPC 40 (CanLII), AJ No 108, per Philp J, at para 30
  3. ↑ see Love, ibid., at para 30
  4. ↑ R v Caza, 2012 BCSC 627 (CanLII), per Powers J, at para 67
  5. ↑ see Love, supra, at para 30
  6. ↑ R v Leask, 2013 BCSC 653 (CanLII), per Bernard J
  7. ↑ Leask, supra
  8. ↑ see Love, supra, at paras 30, 32
  9. ↑ see Love, supra, at para 30 - children's underwear in his bedroom
  10. ↑ R v Donnelly, 2010 BCSC 1294 (CanLII), per Schultes J
  11. ↑ see cases discussed below for sources
  12. ↑ Love, supra, at para 32
  13. ↑ R v Braudy, 2009 CanLII 2491 (ON SC), per Stinson J, at para 52
    citing R v Tresierra, 2006 BCSC 1013 (CanLII), [2006] BCJ No 1593, per D Smith J, at paras 7 and 8
  14. ↑ Tresierra, supra, at para 46
    R v Garbett, 2010 ONSC 2762 (CanLII), 255 CCC (3d) 212, per Tulloch J, at para 42
  15. ↑ eg. R v Panko, 2007 CanLII 41894 (ONSC), [2007] OJ No 3826 (SCJ), per Newbould J, at para 61
  16. ↑ e.g. Braudy, supra, at paras 56, 57
  17. ↑ e.g. Tresierra, supra, at para 53
  18. ↑ Braudy, supra, at paras 68 to 72
  19. ↑ R v Donnelly, 2010 BCSC 1294 (CanLII), per Schultes J
  20. ↑ Braudy, supra, at para 77
  21. ↑ Panko, supra, at para 61
  22. ↑ Braudy, supra, at para 75
  23. ↑ Love, supra, at para 31
  24. ↑ Love, supra, at para 32
  25. ↑ Braudy, supra, at para 74 (using file folders named "X" and "_")
  26. ↑ Missions, supra
  27. ↑ Garbett, supra, at para 44
    Tresierra, supra, at paras 51 to 56
    Braudy, supra, at para 53
  28. ↑ R v Panko, 2006 ONCJ 200 (CanLII), 40 CR (6th) 37, per Reinhardt J
    see also Tresierra, supra, at para 27
  29. ↑ Braudy, supra, at para 53
    Tresierra, supra, at para 27
  30. ↑ Braudy, supra, at paras 54, 55
    R v Missions, 2005 NSCA 82 (CanLII), 196 CCC (3d) 253, per Roscoe JA, at para 21
  31. ↑ e.g. Tresierra, supra, at para 54
  32. ↑ R v Smith, 2013 ONSC 2274 (CanLII), [2013] OJ No 1731 (SC), per Leach J - regarding cocaine found in bedroom

Control

The Crown must show either physical contact or control.[1]

Control over a computer file refers to the "power or authority over the item, whether exercised or not."[2]

Evidence of control can consist of evidence of downloading, copying, moving, storing the files, organizing the files in a user-created filing system, or accessing and creating data on separate occasions.[3]

Control can be inferred by the same evidence from which knowledge can be inferred.[4] In a similar sense, there is no principled distinction between a car and a computer. Inferences may be drawn of control and knowledge.[5]

Control can be based on the duration for which the files were present on the hard drive.[6]

  1. ↑ R v Panko, 2007 CanLII 41894 (ON SC), 52 CR (6th) 378, per Newbould J, at para 47
  2. ↑ R v Chalk, 2007 ONCA 815 (CanLII), 227 CCC (3d) 141, per Doherty JA, at para 19
    see also R v Daniels, 2004 NLCA 73 (CanLII), 191 CCC (3d) 393, per Welsh CJ, at para 12, the ability to determine "what will be done with the material."
  3. ↑ R v Garbett, 2010 ONSC 2762 (CanLII), 255 CCC (3d) 212, per Tulloch J, at para 48
    R v Braudy, 2009 CanLII 2491 (ONSC), per Stinson J, at paras 88 to 90
  4. ↑ Braudy, ibid., at para 89
    see R v Tripp, 2007 NBPC 32 (CanLII), 832 APR 124, per Arsenault J, at para 15
  5. ↑ Panko, supra, at para 71
  6. ↑ Chalk, supra, at para 26 - files were on the hard drive for several months

Accessing

Accessing is a separate offence from possession. It was created to "capture those who intentionally viewed child pornography on the [inter]net but where the legal notion of possession may be problematic."[1]

Accessing requires "knowingly causing child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, oneself."[2]

The definition of accessing excludes the possibility of "inadvertent viewing" where the user opens the file unaware of its criminal character.[3]

The manner in which a file is stored can be suggestive of accessing rather than possession. For example, a file stored in a cache (stored as "temporary internet files") is indicative of accessing, either inadvertently or inadvertently, by the user.[4]

The mere fact that a file was stored as a temporary internet file does not infer that the accused knew of the presence of the file, viewed it, or intended to save it.[5]

Evidence of browsing child pornographic sites, the saving of a "favourite" link to a child pornographic site, and indicators of frequent downloading of child pornographic materials is sufficient to establish accessing.[6]

  1. ↑ R v Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 253, per Fish J, at paras 25 to 27 (it captures conduct of those who “intentionally view child pornography on the internet” in circumstances were the “legal notion of possession may be problematic.")
    citing R v Panko, 2007 CanLII 41894 (ONSC), 52 CR (6th) 378, per Newbould J
    R v Weir, 2001 ABCA 181 (CanLII), 156 CCC (3d) 188, per curiam
    R v Daniels, 2004 NLCA 73 (CanLII), 191 CCC (3d) 393, per Welsh CJ
  2. ↑ see s. 163.1(4.2)
    R v RD, 2010 BCCA 313 (CanLII), 289 BCAC 133, per Bennett JA, at para 31 ("The elements of accessing child pornography are: knowingly causing child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, oneself.")
  3. ↑ R v Garbett, 2010 ONSC 2762 (CanLII), 255 CCC (3d) 212, per Tulloch J, at para 16
  4. ↑ e.g. Garbett, supra
    R v Woods, 2008 ONCJ 395 (CanLII), [2008] OJ No 3466 (Ct. J.), per GA Campbell J, at paras 15, 47 to 49 (deleted file consistent with inadvertent accessing)
    Morelli, supra, at paras 14, 35
  5. ↑ Garbett, supra, at para 9 - citing findings of lower court
  6. ↑ R v Graham, 2011 ONSC 4002 (CanLII), per Desotti J, at para 18

Evidential Issues

In the absence of direct evidence, the court may draw an inference of guilt from the circumstances of the discovery of the child pornography.[1]

An intention to download CP files can be inferred by the number of CP files found in the shared directory of the file-sharing program.[2]

Possession (as well as accessing) can be inferred by factoring in evidence such as:[3]

  • the internet search history;
  • the number of images present at any given time;
  • number of locations the images were found;
  • the duration of existence;

An admission by the accused that he viewed child pornography is not determinative to accessing or possessing. The judge must consider its weight and degree of consistency with the forensic evidence.[4] The Crown should attempt to link the admission with the forensic evidence.[5]

An accused can be found guilty of having accessed and possessed child pornography only where “he knew that at least one of the files that he downloaded showed a person under the age of 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity.”[6]

  1. ↑ R v Wright, 2019 ABCA 452 (CanLII), at para 8
    R v Berkson, 2015 BCCA 224 (CanLII), per Frankel JA, at para 12
  2. ↑ R v Pelich, 2012 ONSC 3611 (CanLII), 103 WCB (2d) 295, per Dunnet J, at para 72
  3. ↑ e.g. R v Tootoosis, 2010 ABQB 11 (CanLII), per Burrows, at paras 32 to 54 - denial by accused rejected due to evidence of history, amount of pictures and their locations
  4. ↑ R v Garbett, 2010 ONSC 2762 (CanLII), 255 CCC (3d) 212, per Tulloch J, at para 68
  5. ↑ Garbett, ibid., at para 69
  6. ↑ R v Pressacco, 2010 SKQB 114 (CanLII), 352 Sask R 276, per Currie J

Determining Acquisition of Files

See above under "Knowledge"

Time of Possession and Access

When a file is created or accessed a time and date stamp is frequently recorded.[1]

The time and time stamp may be unreliable where the user failed to corrected set the internal clock on the computer or where the clock has been intentionally changed to falsify the time and date stamp.[2]

The time of the access or possession is not essential for the Crown to prove, unless defence present evidence that relies upon the dates of the information such as alibi evidence. A judge would err to acquit simply due to lack of evidence with respect to time.[3]

  1. ↑ R v Braudy, 2009 CanLII 2491 (ON SC), per Stinson J, at para 57
  2. ↑ Braudy, ibid., at para 58
  3. ↑ R v Jacques, 2013 SKCA 99 (CanLII), 12 WWR 415, per Richards CJ, at paras 65, 68 to 70
    R v Rytel, 2019 ONSC 1014 (CanLII), per Harris J, at para 25
    R v Carswell, 2009 ONCJ 297 (CanLII), [2009] OJ No 2624, at pp. 456-469

Shared Access to Computer

Where there is evidence that multiple people had access to the computer containing the files at issue, the level of computer competency of each person is significant.[1] It assists in evaluating the reasonableness of other person being capable of downloading or planting the files on the computer without the accused being aware.

Where the evidence simply suggests that other people may have had access to the computer without anything further, such as corroboration with forensic evidence, can be dismissed as speculation.[2]

  1. ↑ e.g. R v Braudy, 2009 CanLII 2491 (ON SC), per Stinson J, at paras 62 to 67
  2. ↑ e.g. R v Graham, 2011 ONSC 4002 (CanLII), per Desotti J, at paras 21, 22

Deleted Files

An accused does not possess a file where he believes that it has been permanently deleted.[1]

The fact that a file is deleted does not alter or end the possession of the file.[2] However, the ability to make the inference of knowledge of deleted files is less than files readily visible to the user.[3]

Generally, "it does not matter for the purpose of criminal possession how briefly one is in possession of the object."[4]

Where a file has been deleted but not overwritten, the Crown should establish that the accused knew that the files were still accessible and knew how to access them.[5]

A judge may infer knowledge of deleted files based on indicators such as:[6]

  • ownership of the computer
  • access to the computer
  • usage of the computer
  1. ↑ R v McDermid, 2008 CanLII 68135 (ON SC), per Hackland J
    see also R v Rowe [2008] EWCA Crim 2712 (UK) (04 November 2008) <http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/2712.html>
  2. ↑ R v Benson, 2012 SKCA 4 (CanLII), 99 WCB (2d) 526, per Herauf JA, at paras 14 to 17
  3. ↑ R v Tripp, 2007 NBPC 32 (CanLII), [2007] NBJ No 336, per Arseneault J, at para 23
    R v Tresierra, 2006 BCSC 1013 (CanLII), [2006] BCJ No 1593, per D Smith J, at paras 51 to 56
    R v Braudy, 2009 CanLII 2491 (ON SC), per Tulloch J
  4. ↑ R v Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 253, per Fish J, at para 30
  5. ↑ R v Davies, 2012 ONSC 3631 (CanLII), per spies J
  6. ↑ R v Midwinter, 2015 ONCA 150 (CanLII), OJ No 1099, per curiam, at para 14

Procedural Issues

Section 163(1)(a) [corrupting morals] can be a lesser included offence of s. 163.1(4).[1]

Difference Between Possession and Accessing

Accessing is considered an "entirely separate and distinct" offence from possession.[2]

  1. ↑ R v JC, 2013 BCPC 237 (CanLII), per MacCarthy J, at para 2
  2. ↑ R v Beierle, 2017 ONSC 1520 (CanLII), OJ No 1234, per Campbell J, at paras 9 to 12
    R v Farmer, 2014 ONCA 823 (CanLII), 318 CCC (3d) 322, per Sharpe JA, at para 27 ("These two crimes are distinct. ")

Sentencing Principles and Ranges

See Also

Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Possession_and_Access_of_Child_Pornography&oldid=95820"