« Possession innocente » : différence entre les versions
Aucun résumé des modifications |
m Remplacement de texte : « ==General Principles== » par « ==Principes généraux== » |
||
| Ligne 3 : | Ligne 3 : | ||
{{Currency2|January|2015}} | {{Currency2|January|2015}} | ||
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderDefences}} | {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderDefences}} | ||
== | ==Principes généraux== | ||
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> | ||
Version du 22 juin 2024 à 11:50
| Ang |
| Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2015. (Rev. # 3558) |
| n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible. |
- < Droit pénal
- < Défenses
Principes généraux
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 c Loukas, 2006 ONCJ 219 (CanLII), [2006] OJ No 2405 (Ont. C.J.), par M Green J - discussing drug possession
R c Chalk, 2007 ONCA 815 (CanLII), 227 CCC (3d) 141, par Doherty JA, au para 24
- ↑ R c Braudy, 2009 CanLII 2491 (ON SC), par Stinson J, au para 92 citing Chalk, au para 23
- ↑ Chalk, supra, au para 24
- ↑ See e.g. Braudy, supra, aux paras 93 and 94