Distribution of Intimate Images (Sentencing Cases): Difference between revisions
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
{{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|{{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|{{CanLIIR-S|MR||2017 ONCJ 943 (CanLII)|{{JailM|5}}| }} | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIR-S|MR||2017 ONCJ 943 (CanLII)}}|{{JailM|5}}| }} | ||
{{SCase1|''R v Ly'' | | }} | {{SCase1|''R v Ly'', [2016] O.J. No. 7196 (Ont.C.J.){{perONCJ|Shandler J}} | | }} | ||
{{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|{{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]}} | ||
Revision as of 19:33, 14 April 2020
- < Sentencing
- < Cases
| ||||||||
Case Digests
Template:SCase1 Template:SCase1
|}