Child Pornography Sentencing: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([a-zA-Z]+)\'\', \[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9]+) ([0-9]{4} SCC [0-9]+)\] \(CanLII\)\{" to "{{CanLIIR|$1|$2|$3 (CanLII)}}{" |
No edit summary |
||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
{{CanLIIR|TLB|1ql87|2007 ABCA 61 (CanLII)}}{{perABCA|Fraser CJ}}{{atL|1ql87|27}}</ref> | {{CanLIIR|TLB|1ql87|2007 ABCA 61 (CanLII)}}{{perABCA|Fraser CJ}}{{atL|1ql87|27}}</ref> | ||
The pornography is of "enormous gravity" upon the victims public as a whole.<ref> | The pornography is of "enormous gravity" upon the victims public as a whole.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|EO|1bxm3|2003 CanLII 2017 (ON CA)|, [2003] OJ No 563, 169 O.A.C. 110 (C.A.)}}{{perONCA|Cronk JA}}{{atL|1bxm3|7}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The "existence of child pornography ... is inherently harmful to children and society" irrespective of the risk of dissemination.<ref> | The "existence of child pornography ... is inherently harmful to children and society" irrespective of the risk of dissemination.<ref> |
Revision as of 21:40, 23 February 2021
|
General Principles
- For general principles on sentence for sexual offences, see Sexual Offences
Sentencing Profile
- Maximum Penalties
Offence(s) | Crown Election |
Maximum Penalty |
---|---|---|
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] From July 17, 2015 |
N/A | 14 years incarceration |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] From July 17, 2015 |
summary election | 2 years less a day incarceration |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] From July 17, 2015 |
indictable election | 10 years incarceration |
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015 |
summary election | 2 years less a day incarceration |
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] November 1, 2005 to July 16, 2015 |
indictable election | 10 years incarceration |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] November 1, 2005 to July 16, 2015 |
summary election | 18 months incarceration |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] November 1, 2005 to July 16, 2015 |
indictable election | 5 years incarceration |
s. s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012 |
summary election | 18 months incarceration |
Offences under s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] are straight indictable. The maximum penalty is 14 years incarceration.
Offences under s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] are hybrid. If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum penalty is 10 years incarceration. If prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is 2 years less a day incarceration.
- Minimum Penalties
Offence(s) | Crown Election |
Minimum Penalty First Offence |
Minimum Penalty Subsequent Offence |
---|---|---|---|
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] From July 17, 2015 |
N/A | 1 year incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] From July 17, 2015 |
summary election | 6 months incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] From July 17, 2015 |
indictable election | 1 year incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015 |
summary election | 6 months incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015 |
indictable election | 1 year incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015 |
summary election | 90 days incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015 |
indictable election | 6 months incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012 |
summary election | 90 days incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012 |
indictable election | 1 year incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012 |
summary election | 14 days incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012 |
indictable election | 45 days incarceration | Same |
s. 163.1(2), (3), (4) and (4.1) Prior to Nov. 1, 2005 |
any | None | Same |
For offences under s. 163.1(2) and (3) there is a mandatory minimum penalty of 12 months incarceration.
Offences under s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) have a mandatory minimum penalty of 1 year incarceration when prosecuted by indictment and 6 months incarceration when prosecuted by summary conviction.
- Penalty Amendments
Prior to November 1, 2005 there were no mandatory minimum penalties.
On August 9, 2012, s. 163.1 was amended to increase the penalties as follows:
- Making: Summary 90 days increased to 6 months
- Distribution: Summary 90 days increased to 6 months
- Possession: Indictable 45 days increased to 6 months / Summary 14 days increased to 90 days
- Accessing: Indictable 45 days increased to 6 months / Summary 14 days increased to 90 days
- Possession: Maximum 18 months increased to 2 years less a day
- Accessing: Maximum 18 months increased to 2 years less a day
On July 17, 2015 penalties were increased. For making child pornography under s. 163.1(2) and distributing under s. 163.1(3), the maximum penalty by indictment increased from 10 years to 14 years. Both offences were hybrid and are now straight indictable. For possession under s. 163.1(4) and accessing under s. 163.1(4.1) the minimum for summary conviction increased from 90 days to 6 months and for indictable offences increased from 6 months to 1 year. The maximum for summary conviction increased from 18 months to 2 years less a day and for indictable offences increased from 5 years to 10 years.
- Available dispositions
Offence(s) | Crown Election |
Discharge s. 730 |
Suspended Sentence s. 731(1)(a) |
Stand-alone Fine s. 731(1)(b) |
Custody s. 718.3, 787 |
Custody and Probation s. 731(1)(b) |
Custody and Fine s. 734 |
Conditional Sentence (CSO) s. 742.1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
s. 163.1(2), (3), (4), (4.1) | any |
Offences under s. 163.1 have mandatory minimums. There are no discharges, suspended sentences, stand-alone fines, or conditional sentences available.
- Consecutive Sentences
Under s. 718.3(7), where the judge sentences an accused at the same time for "more than one sexual offence committed against a child", a sentence must be consecutive where:
- one of the sexual offences against that child is an offence relating to child pornography under s. 163.1. (see s. 718.3(7)(a)); or
- each of the sexual offences against a child, other than a child pornography offence, related to a different child. (see s. 718.3(7)(a))
[note: this only applies for offences occurring after enactment of Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act on July 16, 2015]
Convictions for making child pornography should be treated as a "distinct offence which stands on its own, which addresses a separate and distinct harm to the victim and to society, and which is deserving of a consecutive sentence".[1]
- ↑
R v DC, 2016 MBCA 49 (CanLII), per Burnett JA, at para 44 - relating to offences of sexual touching and making child porn in relation to same victim
General Principles
Offences related to child pornography are a form of sex offence.[1] They are abhorent and cause extreme harm to its victims.[2]
Section 718.01 requires sentencing judges to "give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence" when conduct "involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years". Where the evidence shows that the offender, "in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,... shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstances" under s. 718.2(a)(ii.1). Where the offender is in a "position of trust or authority" in relation to the victim, it will also be aggravating under s. 718.2(a)(iii).
Parliament's intent in s. 163.1 was the "prevention of sexual exploitation of young persons under the age of 18 years".[3]
All offences involving child pornography have a greater emphasis on general deterrence and denunciation.[4]
The initial sentencing response to child pornography offences have been acknowledged as being too lenient.[5]
Section 163.1(4.3) adds an aggravating factor:
163.1
[omitted (1), (2), (3), (4), (4.1) and (4.2)]
- Aggravating factor
(4.3) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the person committed the offence with intent to make a profit.
[omitted (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.
- Consequence of Unconstitutional Minimums
Despite the abolition of mandatory minimums, the courts should take their existence as a signal from Parliament that the offences were not being taken as seriously in the past as they should be.[6]
- ↑ R v Dyck, 2008 ONCA 309 (CanLII), per Blair JA, at para 19
- ↑
R v Nisbet, 2011 ONCA 26 (CanLII), per curiam, at para 1
R v Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), per L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJA, at para 158 (concurring)
R v Lynch-Staunton, 2011 ONSC 218 (CanLII), per Ratushny J, at para 49
R v Schultz, 2018 ONCA 598 (CanLII), per Brown JA, at para 53
- ↑ R v Rowe, 2011 ONCA 48 (CanLII), per curiam
- ↑ R v EO, 2003 CanLII 2017 (ON CA), per Cronk JA, at para 7
- ↑
R v PJB, 2010 ABCA 49 (CanLII), per Watson JA (2:1), at para 10
- ↑
R v Inksetter, 2018 ONCA 474 (CanLII), , [2018] O.J. No. 2702 (C.A.), per Hoy ACJ
Purpose of Section 163.1 Generally
The prohibition and criminalization of child pornography arises out of society’s interest to protect children. [1]
Child pornography presents a "profound and present danger to children around the world".[2] The pornography is of "enormous gravity" upon the victims public as a whole.[3] The "existence of child pornography ... is inherently harmful to children and society" irrespective of the risk of dissemination.[4] The material exploits, degrades, objectifies and dehumanizes children, violates their dignity and equality rights.[5] The pornography "hinders children’s own self-fulfilment and autonomous development by eroticising their inferior social, economic and sexual status".[6]
The exposure of child pornography "may reduce paedophiles' defences and inhibitions against sexual abuse of children" by making the "abnormal seem normal and the immoral seem acceptable".[7]
The possession of this material "fuels fantasies", making an offender more likely to commit a hands-on offence.[8]
By criminalizing possession of child pornography, the legislature provides a "useful tool in detecting and prosecuting the production and distribution of child pornography".[9]
These materials are tools that can be used by paedophiles to "groom" and seduce child victims.[10]
The creation of child pornography, in most cases, requires the use and abuse of children by fuelling the market of those who seek to possess the materials.[11]
- ↑ R v Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), per McLachlin CJ, at para 28 ("This brings us to the countervailing interest at stake in this appeal: society’s interest in protecting children from the evils associated with the possession of child pornography. Just as no one denies the importance of free expression, so no one denies that child pornography involves the exploitation of children. The links between possession of child pornography and harm to children are arguably more attenuated than are the links between the manufacture and distribution of child pornography and harm to children. However, possession of child pornography contributes to the market for child pornography, a market which in turn drives production involving the exploitation of children. Possession of child pornography may facilitate the seduction and grooming of victims and may break down inhibitions or incite potential offences. Some of these links are disputed and must be considered in greater detail in the course of the s. 1 justification analysis. The point at this stage is simply to describe the concerns that, according to the government, justify limiting free expression by banning the possession of child pornography.")
- ↑ R v TLB, 2007 ABCA 61 (CanLII), per Fraser CJ, at para 27
- ↑
R v EO, 2003 CanLII 2017 (ON CA), , [2003] OJ No 563, 169 O.A.C. 110 (C.A.), per Cronk JA, at para 7
- ↑
Sharpe, supra, at para 158 ("The very existence of child pornography, as it is defined by s. 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code, is inherently harmful to children and to society. This harm exists independently of dissemination or any risk of dissemination and flows directly from the existence of the pornographic representations, which on their own violate the dignity and equality rights of children. The harm of child pornography is inherent because degrading, dehumanizing, and objectifying depictions of children, by their very existence, undermine the Charter rights of children and other members of society. Child pornography eroticises the inferior social, economic, and sexual status of children. It preys on preexisting inequalities.")
R v Pecchiarich [2001] OJ No 3940, per Hill J (*no CanLII links) ("Possession of child pornography increasingly menaces our young people and threatens our values as a society.") - ↑
Sharpe, supra, at para 158
- ↑ Sharpe, supra, at para 158
- ↑
Sharpe, supra, at para 88
R v Miller, 2017 NLCA 22 (CanLII), per Hoegg JA, at para 14
- ↑
Sharpe, supra, at para 89 ("The second alleged harm is that possession of child pornography fuels fantasies, making paedophiles more likely to offend. The trial judge found that studies showed a link between highly erotic child pornography and offences. However, other studies suggested that both erotic and milder pornography might provide substitute satisfaction and reduce offences. Putting the studies together, the trial judge concluded that he could not say that the net effect was to increase harm to children (para. 23). Absent evidence as to whether the benefit from sublimation equals the harm of incitement or otherwise, this conclusion seems tenuous. More fundamentally, the trial judge proceeded on the basis that scientific proof was required. The lack of unanimity in scientific opinion is not fatal. Complex human behaviour may not lend itself to precise scientific demonstration, and the courts cannot hold Parliament to a higher standard of proof than the subject matter admits of. Some studies suggest that child pornography, like other forms of pornography, will fuel fantasies and may incite offences in the case of certain individuals. This reasoned apprehension of harm demonstrates a rational connection between the law and the reduction of harm to children through child pornography.")
- ↑
Miller, supra, at para 14
Sharpe, supra, at para 90
- ↑
Miller, supra, at para 14
Sharpe, supra, at para 91
- ↑
Sharpe, supra, at para 92
Miller, supra, at para 14
Effect on Victims
Child pornography contributes to the abuse of children who are photographed or filmed by exploiting their vulnerability.[1]
The child is sexually exploited even where they are unaware of their role in the making of child pornography. [2]
Children are recognized as one of the "most valued and most vulnerable assets." They are generally incapable of defending themselves and so are easily targeted.[3] It is for this reason that courts must focus on protecting children.[4] As with all sexual offences, it has been recognized by courts that child victims of sexual offences suffer from long lasting damage.[5] They suffer from emotional trauma that is often permanent. As adults, they "may become incapable of forming loving relationship, always fearful of re-victimization by sexual partners. Further, the matured victim may become a sexual predator himself. It is often that an offender will report being victimized by other sexual predators as a child."[6]
Live images of children are particularly serious since it creates a permanent record of abuse.[7] Once an image or video is taken and distributed on the internet it will generally propagate indefinitely.[8] The children are re-victimized with each viewing of the materials.[9]
- ↑
R v Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), per McLachlin CJ, at para 169 ("...Child pornography plays a role in the abuse of children, exploiting the extreme vulnerability of children.")
R v Garcia, 2009 BCSC 407 (CanLII), [2009] BCJ No. 581(S.C.), per Griffin J, at paras 14 and 15 - ↑ Garcia, ibid., at paras 14 and 15
- ↑ R v D(D), 2002 CanLII 44915 (ON CA), per Moldaver JA, at para 35
- ↑ R v Nisbet, 2011 ONCA 26 (CanLII), per curiam (Child pornography is "an abhorrent crime that victimizes the most vulnerable members of our society and hence the need for sentences to reflect denunciation and deterrence.")
- ↑ D(D), supra, at para 36 ("In this respect, while there may have been a time, years ago, when offenders like the appellant could take refuge in the fact that little was known about the nature or extent of the damage caused by sexual abuse, that time has long since passed. Today, that excuse no longer holds sway. The horrific consequences of child sexual abuse are only too well known.")
- ↑ D(D), supra, at paras 37 to 38
- ↑ Sharpe, supra, at para 169 ("Pornography that depicts real children is particularly noxious because it creates a permanent record of abuse and exploitation.")
- ↑ Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, at p. 23
- ↑
R v Smith, 2008 CanLII 59107 (ON SC), per Clark J
Garcia, supra, at paras 14 and 15
R v WAE, 2009 CanLII 42861 (NL PC), per Gorman J, at para 30
Prevalence
The frequency of these offences has been expanding with technology becoming more sophisticated.[1]
Perpetrators who make child pornography tend to be people known to the child, including family members and people close to the family.[2]
Those who access and possess child pornography encourage others to sexually abuse children and record it.[3] Thus by deterring possession and access will reduce the abuse of children.[4]
- ↑ R v DGF, 2010 ONCA 27 (CanLII), per Feldman JA , at para 22 ("the incidence of this behaviour appears to be increasing and expanding as technology becomes more sophisticated, encouraging the production of child pornography and greatly facilitating its distribution.")
- ↑ The Sexual Exploitation of Children in Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (November 2011), at p. 23
- ↑
R v Bock, 2010 ONSC 3117 (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 2277 (S.C.J.), per Henderson J, at para 31
- ↑ Bock, ibid., at para 31
Danger of Offenders
Some psychiatric experts suggest that collecting child pornography is an addiction.[1] It may result in the offender to becomes desensitized to the harm caused to children.[2]
An offender with a prior record of actual abuse of children, an accumulation of violent materials involving children, image access history will permit the judge to conclude the offender is a danger to the community.[3]
An offender will often have a great insight into his interests and their inappropriateness but will still endulge in them.[4] When the offender has issues with substance abuse he is more likely to be a risk for future offences as the substances will reduce their inhibitions.[5]
The circulation of images and videos "can create a kind of pedophile-peergroup mentality where social inhibitions against sexualization of children are lowered, potentially encouraging child sexual abuse."[6]
Conviction for child pornography related offences is a strong indicator for pedophilia.[7]
Convictions for child pornography carry with it “stigma, public humiliation, and revulsion.”[8]
- ↑ R v Labre, 2013 ONCJ 116 (CanLII), per Lalande J , at para 18
- ↑ Labre, ibid., at para 18
- ↑ R v EO, 2003 CanLII 2017 (ON CA), per Cronk JA, at para 7
- ↑ e.g. see R v Saddlemire, 2007 ONCA 36 (CanLII), per MacFarland JA , at para 53
- ↑ Saddlemire, ibid., at para 54
- ↑ R v Garcia, 2009 BCSC 407 (CanLII), [2009] BCJ No. 581(S.C.), per Griffin J, at paras 14 and 15
- ↑ http://filecache.drivetheweb.com/np2cr_nca-chapters/12784/download/Peter+Collins+Handouts.pdf
- ↑ R v Schneider, 2008 ONCJ 250 (CanLII), per Wong J, at para 43
Amount of Materials
While the number of illegal files is important to sentence, the amount of files should be not lead to “tariff sentencing”.[1] The difference between file counts are less important as the overall magnitude.[2] The amount of files should not be considered the "most aggravating" factor since it is possible to download hundreds or even thousands of files within 24 hours of internet use.[3]
It is permissible to treat as aggravating the number of images found in association with a single count. There is no "bulk discount" of sentence for the quantity of images.[4]
- ↑ R v Sputnikoff, 2013 SKPC 57 (CanLII), per Agnew J, at paras 36 to 37
- ↑
e.g. Sputninoff, ibid., at para 37
- ↑
R c Von Gunten, 2006 QCCA 286 (CanLII), per Pelletier JA, at para 19
- ↑
R v Andrukonis, 2012 ABCA 148 (CanLII), per curiam, at paras 24 to 26
Classification of Materials
The nature of the materials is an important factor to sentencing.[1] It is evidence suggesting the types of fantasies engaged in by the offender. It could be argued that the more explicit the sexual activity depicted, the more fixated the offender is upon that type of behaviour.
The comparison of nature of the materials found in each case is necessary but should not minimize the "great concern that all child pornography justifiably attracts."[2]
Depictions of child pornography can be categorized into one of five categories, from least serious to most serious: [3]
- images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity;
- sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child;
- non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children;
- penetrative sexual activity between children and adults; and
- sadism or bestiality.
The types of content of the files becomes less relevant for larger collection.[4]
- Non-CP Materials
Courts will often take into account the amount of child exploitative materials are found on the computer as well.[5]
- ↑
R v LaGue, 2013 MBQB 32 (CanLII), per Perlmutter J, at para 19
R v Brooks, 2010 MBPC 61 (CanLII), per Lerner J
- ↑ R v Yau, 2011 ONSC 1009 (CanLII), per MacDonnell J
- ↑
R v Missions, 2005 NSCA 82 (CanLII), per Roscoe JA, at para 14
LaGue, supra, at para 19
- ↑ R v Stupnikoff, 2013 SKPC 57 (CanLII), per Agnew J , at para 35
- ↑ e.g. R v CGL, 2013 ABCA 140 (CanLII), per curiam -- concerning collection of child modelling images
Intersection With Other Sex Offences
There is a close relationship between child pornography offences and those involving hands-on abuse of children. The court must consider each offence in light of its connections with the others.[1]
- ↑ R v LM, 2008 SCC 31 (CanLII), per LeBel J, at para 31
Possession and Accessing Sentencing Principles
The distinction between a charge of accessing or possessing appears to make little difference in the duration of penalty.[1]
- Purpose
The primary objective for sentencing in possession of child pornography is denunciation and general deterrence. [2]
Possession of child pornography contributes to the market for child pornography which drives the production of the materials.[3]
Possession is a "very important contributing element in the general problem of child pornography."[4] It is a "short step" away from being a distributor.[5]
Possession also breaks down inhibitions, and creates cognitive distortions that abuse is not harmful. It normalizes the material, numbing the offender's conscience, and making the immoralities acceptable.[6] In certain individuals, it will fuel fantasies and incite them to commit offences.[7]
The materials encourage potential offenders to groom and seduce children for the purpose of making child pornography.[8]
The sentence for possession of child pornography recognizes the link between possession of the materials and the sexual abuse of children beyond the images themselves.[9]
The offence of accessing should not be considered any less serious an offence as possession.[10]
- ↑
R v Bejasa, 2010 ABPC 249 (CanLII), per Fradsham J, at paras 33 to 34
- ↑
R v Stroemple, 1995 CanLII 2283 (ONCA), 105 CCC (3d) 187, per Morden ACJ, at p. 191
R v Hewlett, 2002 ABCA 179 (CanLII), (2002) 167 CCC (3d) 425, per Fraser CJ, at p. 432 (ABCA)
R v Hunt, [2002] AJ No 831, 2002 ABCA 155 (CanLII), per curiam, at para 41
R v Missions, 2005 NSCA 82 (CanLII), per Roscoe JA
R v Cohen, 2001 CanLII 3862 (ON CA), per curiam
- ↑
R v Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), per McLachlin CJ, at para 28
R v Fisher, [2007] NBJ No. 129, 2007 NBPC 15 (CanLII), per Cumming J, at para 16
Stroempl, supra, at p. 191 - ↑
Stroempl, supra
R v WC, [2004] OJ No 5985 (S.C.J.)(*no CanLII links) , at paras 20-22 - ↑
WC, ibid., at paras 20-26
Stroempl, supra, at p. 191
R v Lisk, 1998 CanLII 4737 (ON CA), [1998] OJ No 1456 (C.A.), per curiam, at para 1
- ↑ Sharpe, supra, at paras 85 to 94
- ↑
Sharpe, supra, at paras 85 to 94
R v Steadman, 2001 ABQB 1004 (CanLII), , [2001] AJ No 1563, per Gallant J, at paras 21 and 22
- ↑ Sharpe, supra, at para 93 ("The ability to possess child pornography makes it available for the grooming and seduction of children by the possessor and others. Mr. Sharpe does not deny that some child pornography can play an important role in the seduction of children. Criminalizing the possession of child pornography is likely to help reduce the grooming and seduction of children.")
- ↑ e.g. R v Durnford, 2006 CanLII 34694 (NL PC), per Gorman J, at para 77
- ↑ R v Hammond, 2009 ABCA 415 (CanLII), per Watson JA, at para 6
Ranges
In Alberta, the range for possession of child pornography is around 12 months. [1]
In Saskatchewan, it has been suggested that for a first time offender for possession should receive anywhere from the minimum to 2 years incarceration.[2]
- ↑ R v Hilderman, 2010 ABPC 183 (CanLII), per Fraser J, at para 15
- ↑
R v Kroeker, 2014 SKQB 137 (CanLII), per Keene J, at para 51
Making Child Pornography Principles
The charge of making can apply the same principles as sexual assault or interference offences against children where the accused is effectively a party to the sexual acts committed against the child.
- Gravity
The offence can range from "recording reprehensible non-consensual sexual acts to pure voyeurism".[1] While all are forms of abuse, "surreptitious recording" of change rooms is on the lower end of the scale.[2]
The gravity of the making of child pornography is different from the possession and access, as making usually involves the direct abuse of children.[3]
Consideration of how many images are made is secondary for the purpose of sentencing to the question of "how" the material was made.[4]
There is a "very strong" link between production and harm. There is a "devastating impact" where the child is "traumatized by being used as a sexual object" which lasts with them for their whole life.[5]
Victims are harmed "not only by the initial production of child pornography but also perpetually if the materials is made available or distributed." The internet makes it impossible to ever remove the material in circulation.[6]
- ↑
R v Gryba, 2016 SKQB 123 (CanLII), per Popescul CJ, at para 63
- ↑
Gryba, ibid., at p. 63
- ↑ R v Rhode, 2019 SKCA 17 (CanLII), per Caldwell JA, at para 89 ("...the gravamen of conduct giving rise to the objective offence of making child pornography differs from the gravamen of the offences of accessing and possessing child pornography. It differs because it usually involves the direct abuse of a child as opposed to the promotion of the abuse of a child. ")
- ↑ R v Rhode, 2019 SKCA 17 (CanLII), per Caldwell JA, at para 89
- ↑ R v Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), per McLachlin CJ, at para 92 ("The link between the production of child pornography and harm to children is very strong. The abuse is broad in extent and devastating in impact. The child is traumatized by being used as a sexual object in the course of making the pornography. The child may be sexually abused and degraded. The trauma and violation of dignity may stay with the child as long as he or she lives.")
- ↑
R v GJM, 2015 MBCA 103 (CanLII), per Mainella JA, at para 14
Factors
It is aggravating if the accused was in a position of trust to the subject of the created child pornography.[1]
It is not a mitigating factor that the materials were not made available online for sharing. It simply suggests that creation was for personal use.[2]
The creation of child pornography through pasting faces on previously downloaded images of child pornography is not a lesser form of creation.[3]
- ↑
R v Gryba, 2016 SKQB 123 (CanLII), per Popescul CJ, at para 64, also citing s. 718.01 and 718.2(a)(ii.1) and (iii)
- ↑
R v GJM, 2015 MBCA 103 (CanLII), per Mainella JA, at para 15
- ↑ R v Rhode, 2019 SKCA 17 (CanLII), per Caldwell JA, at para 89
Ranges
In Manitoba, the making of child pornography where there is evidence of sharing or making available will result in a sentence in the range of "mid to upper single digits".[1]
- ↑
R v GJM, 2015 MBCA 103 (CanLII), per Mainella JA, at para 15
Distribution and Making Available Sentencing Principles
The primary principles for distribution offences are denunciation and deterrence.[1]
Distribution through the internet is particularly despicable as "it is unbounded once the materials are sent out to one person."[2] Files made available online for circulation will allow the "virtual abuse" to "go on forever".[3]
Even the possibility that distribution "might occur” create harm as to the victim's "have ongoing fear and uncertainty" that the files will remain accessible on the Internet and will revicitimize them. [4]
- ↑ R v B(TL), 2007 ABCA 61 (CanLII), , (2007) 218 CCC (3d) 11 (ABCA), per Fraser CJ leave to SCC refused
- ↑
R v Weber, 2003 CanLII 28579 (ON CA), , [2003] OJ No 3306 (C.A.), per Feldman JA, at para 16
- ↑
R v Kwok, 2007 CanLII 2942 (ON SC), per Molloy J, at para 51
- ↑ R v DGF, 2010 ONCA 27 (CanLII), per Feldman JA, at para 25
Factors
Aggravating factors include: [1]
- Where the images were shown or distributed to a child.
- the amount of images or videos collected[2]
- the level of sophistication of the collection. This is determined by way of how it was organized on a computer. It will sometimes indicate the level of trading or level of personal interest in the material. On the low end would include images viewed but not stored on the computer.
- Whether images or videos were posted on public areas of the internet, “or distributed in a way making it more likely they will be found accidentally by computer users not looking for pornographic material”
- where the offender is responsible for the original production of the images, in particular where the victims were members of the offender’s family, or drawn from particularly vulnerable groups, or if the offender has abused a position of trust, as in the case of a teacher, friend of the family, social worker, or youth group leader.
- The age of the children depicted. The younger the child, the greater the psychological harm, including fear and distress, and the greater likelihood of physical injury. [3]
- the degree of intrusion and repulsivity of any sexual acts depicted. This is in part captured by the categories in Missions[4]
- the manner in which the images were obtained : simple downloading through file-sharing programs, other non-commerical means versus purchases on websites or international connections.[5]
- signs on potential distribution or production.
- related criminal record;
- evidence that the offender has pedophilic tendencies or diagnosis of paedophilia;
- the predatory nature of the offence;[6]
Mitigating factors considered:[7]
- the youthful age of the offender;
- the otherwise good character of the offender;
- the extent to which the offender has shown insight into his problem;
- whether he has demonstrated genuine remorse;
- whether the offender is willing to submit to treatment and counseling or has already undertaken such treatment;
- the existence of a guilty plea; and
- the extent to which the offender has already suffered for his crime.
The lack of a profit motive is not a mitigating factor. Most traders are not doing it for money.[8]
In sentencing for making available, there is only minor mitigation if the speed of the connection is set at the lowest setting.[9]
A previous conviction for a child pornography related offence is the "most aggravating" of factors.[10]
Aggravating to sentence would include evidence of any precautions to avoid detection by police.[11] However, the presence of hardware "wiping" software alone may not sufficient by itself to suggest that there was more child pornography than discovered.[12]
- ↑
R v Saddler, 2009 NSWCCA 83 (AustLII) also referred to Regina v Oliver, Hartrey and Baldwin [2004] UKHL 43; [2003] 1 Cr App R 28
R v WAE, 2009 CanLII 42861 (NL PC), per Gorman J, at para 76
R v Smith, 2008 CanLII 59107 (ON SC), per Clark J
R v Kwok, 2007 CanLII 2942 (ON SC), per Molloy J
See also: R v Mallett, 2005 CanLII 32927 (ON SC), , [2005] OJ No 3868, per Hill J
- ↑ R v Donnelly, 2010 BCSC 1523 (CanLII), per Schultes J, at para 36 Judge discusses the importance of the number of images to the range of sentence
- ↑
Mallett, supra, at para 15
- ↑
R v Missions, 2005 NSCA 82 (CanLII), per Roscoe JA
see also Mallett, supra, at para 15
- ↑
Mallett, supra, at para 15
- ↑ R v Innes, 2008 ABCA 129 (CanLII), per curiam, at para 12
- ↑
Kwok, supra
R v Parise, [2002] OJ No 2513 (ONCJ) (*no CanLII links)
Mallett, supra, at paras 15 to 16 (ONSC)
R v Smith, 2008 CanLII 59107 (ON SC), per Clark J
- ↑ R v B(TL), 2007 ABCA 61 (CanLII), (2007) 218 CCC (3d) 11 (ABCA), per Fraser CJ leave to SCC refused, at para 28
- ↑
R v Stupnikoff, 2013 SKPC 57 (CanLII), per Agnew J , at para 27
- ↑
R v Schneider, 2008 ONCJ 250 (CanLII), per Wong J, at para 43
- ↑
R c Bertrand, 2014 QCCQ 5233 (CanLII), per Boyer J, at para 39
R c Von Gunten, 2006 QCCA 286 (CanLII), per Gendreau J
- ↑ R v Bejasa, 2010 ABPC 249 (CanLII), per Fradsham J, at paras 16 and 17
Range
In Alberta, there is typically a general range of sentence between 3 and 18 months followed by one to three years probation for distribution of child pornography. [1]
- ↑ R v Shelton, 2006 ABCA 190 (CanLII), , (2006), 391 A.R. 177 (Alta. C.A.), per Fruman JA , at para 12
Other Issues
Probationary terms added as part of sentences for child pornography will often include conditions prohibiting or limiting use of "Computer Systems" as defined in s. 342.1
See Real Evidence#Child Pornographic Images and Video
- Constitutionality – Distribution
It has been found that the mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year for distribution of child pornography does not violate s. 12 of the Charter for being cruel and unusual punishment.[1] While there is also some authority finding that the offence of distribution of child pornography under s. 163.1(3) violates s. 12 of the Charter.[2]
- Constitutionality – Making
The mandatory minimum of making child pornography has been found in some jurisdictions as unconstitutional.[3]
- Constitutionality – Possession
There is appellate authority that the 90-day minimum sentence for possessing child pornography is unconstitutional as it is cruel and unusual punishment.[4] There is also authority that the minimum of 6 months is unconstitutional.[5]
- ↑ R v Schultz, 2008 ABQB 679 (CanLII), per Topolniski J
- ↑ R v Mollon, 2019 BCSC 423 (CanLII), per Crossin J
- ↑
R v Esposito, 2020 ABQB 165 (CanLII), per Gates J, at para 170
R v Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733 (CanLII), per curiam
- ↑
R v Joseph, 2018 ONSC 4646 (CanLII), per McKinnon J, at para 94
R v Swaby, 2018 BCCA 416 (CanLII), per Bennett JA - summary conviction 90 day minimum on s. 163.1(4)(b) - appeal refused 2019 CanLII 55715
- ↑
R v John, 2018 ONCA 702 (CanLII), per Pardu JA - found 6 month minimum is unconstitutional
R v Alexander, 2019 BCCA 100 (CanLII), per MacKenzie JA - Crown proceeded by indictment on s. 163.1(4)(a)
Kienapple
Possession and making can be the subject of the Kienapple Principle. [1]
- ↑ R v Brunton, 2014 ONCJ 120 (CanLII), per Harris J, at para 28
Ancillary Sentencing Orders
- Offence-specific Orders
Order | Conviction | Description |
---|---|---|
DNA Orders | s. 163.1 |
|
SOIRA Orders | s. 163.1 |
Note that by function of s. 490.011(2) of the Code, SOIRA orders are not available when sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act
Note that by function of s. 490.011(2) of the Code, SOIRA orders are not available when sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act |
Section 161 Orders | s. 163.1 |
|
Delayed Parole Order | s. 163.1 |
|
Forfeiture Order—Computer-related (s.164.2) | s. 163.1 |
|
- General Sentencing Orders
Order | Conviction | Description |
---|---|---|
Non-communication order while offender in custody (s. 743.21) | any | The judge has the discretion to order that the offender be prohibited "from communicating...with any victim, witness or other person" while in custody except where the judge "considers [it] necessary" to communicate with them. |
Restitution Orders (s. 738) | any | A discretionary Order is available for things such as the replacement value of the property; the pecuniary damages incurred from harm, expenses fleeing a domestic partner; or certain expenses arising from the commission of an offence under s.402.2 or 403. |
Victim Fine Surcharge (s. 737) | any | A discretionary surcharge under s. 737 of 30% of any fine order imposed, $100 per summary conviction or $200 per indictable conviction. If the offence occurs on or after October 23, 2013, the order has smaller minimum amounts (15%, $50, or $100). |
- General Forfeiture Orders
Forfeiture | Conviction | Description |
---|---|---|
Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime (s. 462.37(1) or (2.01)) | any | Where there is a finding of guilt for an indictable offence under the Code or the CDSA in which property is "proceeds of crime" and offence was "committed in relation to that property", the property shall be forfeited to His Majesty the King on application of the Crown. NB: does not apply to summary offences. |
Fine in Lieu of Forfeiture (s. 462.37(3)) | any | Where a Court is satisfied an order for the forfeiture of proceeds of crime under s. 462.37(1) or (2.01) can be made, but that property cannot be "made subject to an order", then the Court "may" order a fine in "an amount equal to the value of the property". Failure to pay the fine will result in a default judgement imposing a period of incarceration. |
Forfeiture of Weapons or Firearms (s. 491) | any | Where there is finding of guilt for an offence where a "weapon, an imitation firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance was used in the commission of [the] offence and that thing has been seized and detained", or "that a person has committed an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance has been seized and detained, that the item be an enumerated weapon or related item be connected to the offence", then there will be a mandatory forfeiture order. However, under s. 491(2), if the lawful owner "was not a party to the offence" and the judge has "no reasonable grounds to believe that the thing would or might be used in the commission of an offence", then it should be returned to the lawful owner. |
Forfeiture of Offence-related Property (s. 490.1) | any | Where there is a finding of guilt for an indictable offence, "any property is offence-related property" where (a) by means or in respect of which an indictable offence under this Act or the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act is committed, (b) that is used in any manner in connection with the commission of such an offence, or (c) that is intended to be used for committing such an offence". Such property is to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province. NB: does not apply to summary offences. |
Record Suspensions and Pardons
Convictions under s. 163.1 [child pornography] are ineligible for record suspensions pursuant to s. 4 of the Criminal Records Act. An exception can be made under s. 4(3) for those offences where there was no relationship of “trust”, “authority” or “dependency”; no violence, threats or coercion; and age difference between victim and offender is less than 5 years.
See Also
|
- Level Zero
- Criminal Law
- Offences
- Offences with Maximum Penalty of 14 Years
- Offences with Maximum Penalty of 2 Years Less a Day
- Offences with Maximum Penalty of 10 Years
- Offences with Maximum Penalty of 18 Months
- Offences with Maximum Penalty of 5 Years
- Straight Indictable Offences
- Hybrid Offences
- Offences with Minimum Penalty of 1 Year
- Offences with Minimum Penalty of 6 Months
- Offences with Minimum Penalty of 90 Days
- Offences with Minimum Penalty of 14 Days
- Offences with Minimum Penalty of 45 Days
- Offences with Minimum Penalty of 12 Months
- Offences with Mandatory Minimums
- 1993, c. 46
- 2002, c. 13
- 2005, c. 32
- 2012, c. 1
- 2015, c. 23
- Primary Designated Offences for DNA Orders
- SOIRA Designated Offences
- Section 161 Prohibition Offences
- Delayed Parole
- Sexual Offences