Distribution of Intimate Images (Sentencing Cases): Difference between revisions
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Case Digests== | ==Case Digests== | ||
{{SCaseHeader}} | {{SCaseHeader}} | ||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|Fortin|j52gv|2020 QCCQ 311 (CanLII)}}{{perQCCQ|Tremblay J}} | {{dischargeC}} | }} | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|Fortin|j52gv|2020 QCCQ 311 (CanLII)}}{{perQCCQ|Tremblay J}} | {{dischargeC}} | }} | ||
<!-- | |||
R. v. B.H., [2016] OJ No. 7080 | |||
R v Zhou 2016 ONCJ 547; R v Calpito 2017 ONCJ 129; R v TD 2018 ABPC 232; R v MR 2017 ONCJ 943; ; R v Borden 2019 CarswellNfld 141; R v MacFarlane 2018 MBCA 48 | |||
R v Zhou 2016 ONCJ 547; R v Calpito 2017 ONCJ 129 | |||
--> | --> | ||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|AB|j51rs|2020 QCCQ 260 (CanLII)}}{{perQCCQ|Galiatsatos J}}| | }} | |||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S| | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|BS|j08c1|2019 MBPC 26 (CanLII)}}{{perMBPC|Thompson J}} | {{JailD|90}} | }} | ||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|MTB|hzv2g|2019 BCPC 77 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Young J}} | {{JailM|5}} (image)<Br>{{JailM|3}} (intimidation)| }} | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|MTB|hzv2g|2019 BCPC 77 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Young J}} | {{JailM|5}} (image)<Br>{{JailM|3}} (intimidation)| }} | ||
| Line 25: | Line 22: | ||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|JS|j0tp4|2019 ABPC 134 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Keelaghan J}} | {{suspended}} | }} | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|JS|j0tp4|2019 ABPC 134 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Keelaghan J}} | {{suspended}} | }} | ||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S| | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|Greene|hr7cd|2018 CanLII 25580 (NL PC)}}{{perNLPC|Gorman J}} | {{JailM|8}} | "The accused was a 25-year-old who had a minor, unrelated criminal record. He had been in a two-year relationship and shared a child with the victim at the time she broke up with him. He threated to kill her twice and sent her friend intimate video of the victim engaging in sexual intercourse with another man. He also pled guilty to two counts of uttering threats to kill the complainant, assault peace officer and breach of recognizance by drinking. The Crown proceeded summarily. On all charges, he was sentenced to a total of eight months jail and three years of supervised probation, including a five month jail sentence on the count of distributing an intimate image." [http://canlii.ca/t/j08c1] }} | ||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|McFarlane|hrwh1|2018 MBCA 48 (CanLII)}}{{perMBCA|Mainella JA}} | {{JailM|18}} (global)<br> {{JailM|6}} (images)<Br> {{JailM|12}} (extortion)<Br> {{JailM|6}} (voyeurism) | "The accused was 26-years-old with no criminal record. He pled guilty to voyeurism, extortion and distribution of an intimate image without consent and extortion. He surreptitiously videotaped a 17-year-old undressing and showering. He sent images to the victim and her sister when he attempted to extort sexually explicit material or activity from the victim by threating to disseminate intimate images of her. He did not otherwise publish the images. The accused was assessed as a very low risk for any future offending, but the Pre-Sentence Report was more negative and assessed him as a moderate-high risk based on a STATIC-99R profile for sexual offences. He was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for extortion, six months concurrent for distribution of an intimate image and six months consecutive for voyeurism, for a total sentence of eighteen months. The Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld the combined sentence but re-allocated three months for voyeurism, fifteen months consecutive for extortion and six months concurrent for distribution of an intimate image."[http://canlii.ca/t/j08c1] }} | |||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|Haines-Matthews|hw4tj|2018 ABPC 264 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Fradsham J}} | {{JailM|5}} + {{ProbationM|12}} | }} | |||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S| | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|JB|htc44|2018 ONSC 4726 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Leach J}} | {{CSOM|16}} <br> {{ProbationY|3}} | }} | ||
}} | |||
{{SCase1| | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|JS|hq7nk|2018 ONCJ 82 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Ghosh J}} | {{JailM|18}} | "They were dating and agreed to occasionally video record their sexual activity. None of the videos were intended for public view. After a time she found the cameras unsettling and declined to participate in further recordings. Then she began finding hidden cameras. At one point she located on his laptop publicly posted videos of their sexual activity. Her name was tagged. She demanded that he fix it. He said that he would and, instead, continued to post videos of their sexual activity on a variety of online platforms. Then strangers began contacting her." Joint Submission.}} | ||
{{SCase1| | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|AC|htc44|2017 ONCJ 317 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Leach J}} | {{jailM|5}} | "The male offender, a 32-year-old with no criminal record, was in a relationship with the female victim during the course of which, and with her consent, he took intimate videos and nude photographs of her. After the relationship ended, the offender, without consent, posted on three websites those videos and photographs together with derogatory comments. The victim’s name was posted with the images and her face was visible on some of the images."[http://canlii.ca/t/hw4tj] [http://canlii.ca/t/j08c1] }} | ||
{{SCase1| | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|Agoston|h4dlr|2017 ONSC 3425 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Cornell J}} | {{DischargeC}}, 12 months| "The accused plead guilty to one count of distributing an intimate image. A one-year conditional discharge was imposed. The daughter of a family friend sent him two images of herself that he shared with two co-workers before deleting them. He did not solicit the images from the complainant. There was no internet distribution. His pre-sentence report was very positive. The offence appeared to be an unplanned, momentary lapse in judgment. The Court determined that the distribution was extremely limited and fell on the less serious end of the spectrum of this offence." [http://canlii.ca/t/j08c1] }} | ||
{{SCase1| | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|PSD|gw378|2016 BCPC 400 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Sudeyko J}} | {{Suspended}}, 2 years probation | "The accused was 22-years-old. At the end of a two-day trial on more serious charges, he pled guilty to distributing an intimate image and once count of breaching his recognizance. The image was taken without the consent of the victim. The recognizance breach was a no-contact breach where the complaint either had agreed to contact or had initiated it. The Court emphasized the rashness of the taking of the images, which were quite blurry, making it difficult to identify the complainant. There was not widespread distribution; the accused sent them to two friends. .. After factoring that the accused had spent sixty days in custody and determining that a relatively low level of harm had occurred and the prospects for this youthful first offender were positive, the Court imposed a probationary sentence of two years, with protective relief." [http://canlii.ca/t/j08c1]}} | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
{{SCase1|''R v BH'',<br>[2016] OJ No 7080 (ONCJ){{NOCANLII}}{{perONCJ|Dorval J}} | | "During a relationship between the female victim and the male offender, without the victim’s consent, the offender made videos and intimate photographs of the victim which he posted on amateur pornography sites. Access to the images and videos he posted on the sites required one to obtain a password from the offender." [http://canlii.ca/t/hw4tj] }} | {{SCase1|''R v BH'',<br>[2016] OJ No 7080 (ONCJ){{NOCANLII}}{{perONCJ|Dorval J}} | | "During a relationship between the female victim and the male offender, without the victim’s consent, the offender made videos and intimate photographs of the victim which he posted on amateur pornography sites. Access to the images and videos he posted on the sites required one to obtain a password from the offender." [http://canlii.ca/t/hw4tj] }} | ||
--> | --> | ||
{{SCaseEnd}} | {{SCaseEnd}} | ||
Revision as of 19:01, 14 April 2020
- < Sentencing
- < Cases
| ||||||||
Case Digests
Template:SCase1 Template:SCase1
|}