Innocent Possession: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "/ref> I" to "/ref> I" Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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.<ref> | 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.<ref> | ||
''R v Loukas'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nlj4 2006 ONCJ 219] (CanLII), [2006] OJ No 2405 (Ont. C.J.){{perONCJ|M Green J}} - discussing drug possession<br> | ''R v Loukas'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nlj4 2006 ONCJ 219] (CanLII), [2006] OJ No 2405 (Ont. C.J.){{perONCJ|M Green J}} - discussing drug possession<br> | ||
''R v Chalk'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1txps 2007 ONCA 815] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{ | ''R v Chalk'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1txps 2007 ONCA 815] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atL|1txps|24}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
It also excuses possession where it is for the sole purpose of immediately destroying the materials or placing them beyond his control.<ref> | It also excuses possession where it is for the sole purpose of immediately destroying the materials or placing them beyond his control.<ref> | ||
''R v Braudy'', [http://canlii.ca/t/228vp 2009 CanLII 2491] (ON SC){{perONSC|Stinson J}}{{ | ''R v Braudy'', [http://canlii.ca/t/228vp 2009 CanLII 2491] (ON SC){{perONSC|Stinson J}}{{atL|228vp|92}} citing Chalk{{atL|228vp|23}}</ref> | ||
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.<ref> | 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.<ref> | ||
{{supra1|Chalk}}{{atL|1txps|24}}</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> | 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}}{{atsL|228vp|93| and 94}}</ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Revision as of 21:51, 19 August 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
- ↑ Chalk, supra, at para 24
- ↑ See e.g. Braudy, supra, at paras 93 and 94