Innocent Possession: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - ", at para ([0-9][0-9])" to "{{at|$1}}" |
m Text replacement - "\} at para ([0-9][0-9] and [0-9][0-9])" to "}{{ats|$1}}" |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Innocent possession will generally not apply where the created and access dates of the deleted files show evidence that the user knowingly storing the files for a period of time before deleting them. Further evidence of selective deleting of files shows an intent to sort rather than destroy.<ref> | Innocent possession will generally not apply where the created and access dates of the deleted files show evidence that the user knowingly storing the files for a period of time before deleting them. Further evidence of selective deleting of files shows an intent to sort rather than destroy.<ref> | ||
See e.g. {{supra1|Braudy}} | See e.g. {{supra1|Braudy}}{{ats|93 and 94}}</ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Revision as of 13:43, 12 February 2019
- < Criminal Law
- < Defences
General Principles
The doctrine of "innocent possession" is a potential defence to possession of child pornography. The doctrine is a "public duty defence" which permits possession for lawful purposes such as delivering it to authorities.[1] It also excuses possession where it is for the sole purpose of immediately destroying the materials or placing them beyond his control.[2]
By establishing this limited intention, there will be an absence of a blameworthy state of mind or blameworthy conduct. Mere technical findings of knowledge and control should not constitute possession.[3]
Innocent possession will generally not apply where the created and access dates of the deleted files show evidence that the user knowingly storing the files for a period of time before deleting them. Further evidence of selective deleting of files shows an intent to sort rather than destroy.[4]
- ↑
R v Loukas, 2006 ONCJ 219 (CanLII), [2006] OJ No 2405 (Ont. C.J.), per M Green J - discussing drug possession
R v Chalk, 2007 ONCA 815 (CanLII), per Doherty JA, at para 24
- ↑ R v Braudy, 2009 CanLII 2491 (ON SC), per Stinson J at para 92 citing Chalk, at para 23
- ↑ R v Chalk, 2007 ONCA 815 (CanLII), 227 CCC (3d) 141, per Doherty JA at 24
- ↑ See e.g. Braudy, supra, at paras 93 and 94