Le carnet de droit pénal

Condamnations pour pornographie juvénile

Version datée du 4 juillet 2024 à 14:15 par AdminF (discussion | contributions) (Remplacement de texte : « ; General Forfeiture Orders↵ » par « ; Ordonnances générales de confiscation »)
Ang

Fr

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois February 2023. (Rev. # 7613)
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.

Principes généraux

Voir également: Objectifs et principes de la détermination de la peine, Facteurs de détermination de la peine liés au délinquant, et Facteurs de détermination de la peine liés à l'infraction
Pour les principes généraux relatifs aux peines pour les délits sexuels, voir infractions sexuelles and Sentencing for Child Sexual Offences

Sentencing Profile

Voir également: History of Child Pornography Offences
Maximum Penalties
Infraction(s) Élection
de la couronne		 Pénalité maximale
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing]
From July 17, 2015		 N/A 14 ans d'emprisonnement
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
From July 17, 2015		 procédure sommaire 2 ans moins un jour d'emprisonnement
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
From July 17, 2015		 punissable par mise en accusation 10 ans d'emprisonnement
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing]
August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015		 procédure sommaire 2 ans moins un jour d'emprisonnement
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing]
November 1, 2005 to July 16, 2015		 punissable par mise en accusation 10 ans d'emprisonnement
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
November 1, 2005 to July 16, 2015		 procédure sommaire 18 mois d'emprisonnement
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
November 1, 2005 to July 16, 2015		 punissable par mise en accusation 5 ans d'emprisonnement
s. s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing]
November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012		 procédure sommaire 18 mois d'emprisonnement

Les infractions en vertu de l'art. s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing] sont directement passibles d'une mise en accusation. La peine maximale est de 14 ans d'emprisonnement.

Les infractions visées par la clause s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access] sont des infractions hybrides. Si elles sont poursuivies par mise en accusation, la peine maximale est de 10 ans d'emprisonnement. Si elles sont poursuivies par procédure sommaire, la peine maximale est de 2 ans moins un jour d'emprisonnement.

Minimum Penalties
Infraction(s) Élection de la Couronne Peine minimale
Première infraction		 Peine minimale
Infraction subséquente
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing]
From July 17, 2015		 N/A 1 an d'emprisonnement Same
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
From July 17, 2015		 procédure sommaire 6 mois d'emprisonnement Same
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
From July 17, 2015		 punissable par mise en accusation 1 an d'emprisonnement Same
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing]
August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015		 procédure sommaire 6 mois d'emprisonnement Same
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing]
August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015		 punissable par mise en accusation 1 an d'emprisonnement Same
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015		 procédure sommaire 90 jours d'incarcération Same
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
August 9, 2012 to July 16, 2015		 punissable par mise en accusation 6 mois d'emprisonnement Same
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing]
November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012		 procédure sommaire 90 jours d'incarcération Same
s. 163.1(2) and (3) [making, distributing]
November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012		 punissable par mise en accusation 1 an d'emprisonnement Same
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012		 procédure sommaire 14 days incarceration Same
s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) [poss'n, access]
November 1, 2005 to August 8, 2012		 punissable par mise en accusation 45 days incarceration Same
s. 163.1(2), (3), (4) and (4.1)
Prior to Nov. 1, 2005		 any None Same

Pour les infractions inférieures à s. 163.1(2) and (3), il existe une peine minimale obligatoire de 12 months incarceration.

Les infractions visées à l’article s. 163.1(4) and (4.1) sont passibles d’une peine minimale obligatoire de 1 an d'emprisonnement lorsqu’elles sont poursuivies par mise en accusation et de 6 mois d'emprisonnement lorsqu’elles sont poursuivies par procédure sommaire.

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) Choix du
mode de poursuite		 Absolution
l'art. 730		 Ordonnances de
probation
l'art. 731(1)(a)		 Amendes
autonome
l'art. 731(1)(b)		 Détenues sous garde
l'art. 718.3, 787		 Détenues sous garde and
Probation
l'art. 731(1)(b)		 Détenues sous garde and
Amende
l'art. 734		 Ordonnances
du sursis (ODS)
l'art. 742.1
s. 163.1(2), (3), (4), (4.1) any              


Les infractions de moins de s. 163.1 sont assorties d'une peine minimale obligatoire. Il n'existe pas d'absolution, d'peine avec sursis, d'amende autonome ou d'peine avec sursis.

Consecutive Sentences

En vertu de l'art. 718.3(7), lorsque le juge condamne un accusé en même temps pour « plus d'une infraction sexuelle commise contre un enfant », la peine doit être consécutives lorsque :

  • l'une des infractions sexuelles contre cet enfant est une infraction liée à la pornographie juvénile en vertu de l'art. 163.1. (voir l'alinéa 718.3(7)a)); ou
  • chacune des infractions sexuelles contre un enfant, autre qu'une infraction de pornographie juvénile, liée à un enfant différent. (voir l'alinéa 718.3(7)a))

[Remarque : cela ne s'applique qu'aux infractions commises après la promulgation de la « Loi sur des sanctions plus sévères pour les prédateurs d'enfants » le 16 juillet 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]

  1. ↑ R c DC, 2016 MBCA 49 (CanLII), 336 CCC (3d) 366, par Burnett JA, au para 44 - relating to offences of sexual touching and making child porn in relation to same victim

Principes généraux

Offences related to child pornography are a form of sex offence.[1] They are abhorrent and cause extreme harm to its victims.[2] The material is "inherently harmful."[3]

L'article 718.01 exige que les juges chargés de déterminer la peine « accordent une attention particulière aux objectifs de dénonciation et de dissuasion » lorsque la conduite « impliquait des mauvais traitements envers une personne âgée de moins de dix-huit ans ». Lorsque la preuve démontre que le délinquant, « en commettant l'infraction, a maltraité une personne âgée de moins de dix-huit ans, [...] est réputé constituer une circonstance aggravante » au sens du sous-alinéa 718.2a)(ii.1). Lorsque le délinquant est en « situation de confiance ou d'autorité » par rapport à la victime, il s'agit également d'une circonstance aggravante au sens du sous-alinéa 718.2a)(iii).

Parliament's intent in s. 163.1 was the "prevention of sexual exploitation of young persons under the age of 18 years."[4]

All offences involving child pornography have a greater emphasis on general deterrence and denunciation.[5]

The initial sentencing response to child pornography offences have been acknowledged as being too lenient.[6]

Child pornography is increasing and expanding as technology becomes more sophisticated.[7]

Section 163.1(4.3) adds an aggravating factor:

163.1
[omis (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.
[omis (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.

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

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.[8]

  1. ↑ R c Dyck, 2008 ONCA 309 (CanLII), 232 CCC (3d) 450, par Blair JA, au para 19
  2. ↑ R c Nisbet, 2011 ONCA 26 (CanLII), OJ No 101, par curiam, au para 1
    R c Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 45, par L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJA, au para 158 (concurring)
    R c Lynch-Staunton, 2011 ONSC 218 (CanLII), par Ratushny J, au para 49
    R c Schultz, 2018 ONCA 598 (CanLII), 142 OR (3d) 128, par Brown JA, au para 53
  3. ↑ R c McSween, 2020 ONCA 343 (CanLII), 388 CCC (3d) 153, par Trotter JA, au para 49
  4. ↑ R c Rowe, 2011 ONCA 48 (CanLII), par curiam
  5. ↑ R c EO, 2003 CanLII 2017 (ON CA), [2003] OJ No 563, 169 OAC 110 (CA), par Cronk JA, au para 7
    R c DGF, 2010 ONCA 27 (CanLII), 98 OR (3d) 241, par Feldman JA, aux paras 21 to 22, 30
    R c Nisbet, 2011 ONCA 26, [2011] OJ No 101, par curiam, au para 3
    R c Stroempl, 1995 CanLII 2283 (ON CA), 105 CCC (3d) 187, par Morden ACJ, au para 9
    R c Inksetter, 2018 ONCA 474 (CanLII), 141 OR (3d) 161, par Hoy ACJ, au para 16
  6. ↑ R c PJB, 2010 ABCA 49 (CanLII), 474 AR 161, par Watson JA (2:1), au para 10
  7. ↑ R c Inksetter, 2018 ONCA 474 (CanLII), 141 OR (3d) 161, par Hoy ACJ, au para 26
  8. ↑ R c Inksetter, 2018 ONCA 474 (CanLII), [2018] OJ No 2702 (CA), par 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]

Inherent Danger

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]

Effect on Child Development

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]

Effect on Offender's Perspectives

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]

Collection Driving the Market

The process of collecting and possessing child pornography creates a market for the production of more of these materials.[9]

Tool for Grooming

These materials are tools that can be used by paedophiles to "groom" and seduce child victims.[10]

Prosecuting Possession

By criminalizing possession of child pornography, the legislature provides a "useful tool in detecting and prosecuting the production and distribution of child pornography."[11]

Effect of Creation

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.[12]

  1. ↑ R c Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 45, par McLachlin CJ, au 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.")
  2. ↑ R c TLB, 2007 ABCA 61 (CanLII), 218 CCC (3d) 11, par Fraser CJ, au para 27
  3. ↑ R c EO, 2003 CanLII 2017 (ON CA), [2003] OJ No 563, 169 OAC 110 (CA), par Cronk JA, au para 7
  4. ↑ Sharpe, supra, au 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 c Pecchiarich [2001] OJ No 3940(*pas de liens CanLII) , par Hill J ("Possession of child pornography increasingly menaces our young people and threatens our values as a society.")
  5. ↑ Sharpe, supra, au para 158
  6. ↑ Sharpe, supra, au para 158
  7. ↑ Sharpe, supra, au para 88
    R c Miller, 2017 NLCA 22 (CanLII), 354 CCC (3d) 58, par Hoegg JA, au para 14
  8. ↑ Sharpe, supra, au 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.")
  9. ↑ R c Stroempl, [1] (hyperliens fonctionnels en attente) at p. 191
  10. ↑ Miller, supra, au para 14
    Sharpe, supra, au para 91
  11. ↑ Miller, supra, au para 14
    Sharpe, supra, au para 90
  12. ↑ Sharpe, supra, au para 92
    Miller, supra, au 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]

  1. ↑ R c Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 45}, par McLachlin CJ, au para 169 ("...Child pornography plays a role in the abuse of children, exploiting the extreme vulnerability of children.")
    R c Garcia, 2009 BCSC 407 (CanLII), [2009] BCJ No 581(S.C.), par Griffin J, aux paras 14 and 15
  2. ↑ , ibid., aux paras 14 and 15
  3. ↑ R c D(D), 2002 CanLII 44915 (ON CA), 163 CCC (3d) 471, par Moldaver JA, au para 35
  4. ↑ R c Nisbet, 2011 ONCA 26 (CanLII), OJ No 101, par 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.")
  5. ↑ D(D), supra, au 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.")
  6. ↑ D(D), supra, aux paras 37 to 38
  7. ↑ Sharpe, supra, au para 169 ("Pornography that depicts real children is particularly noxious because it creates a permanent record of abuse and exploitation.")
  8. ↑ Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, au p. 23
  9. ↑ R c Smith, 2008 CanLII 59107 (ON SC), par Clark J
    Garcia, supra, aux paras 14 and 15
    R c WAE, 2009 CanLII 42861 (NL PC), 890 APR 214, par Gorman J, au 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]

  1. ↑ R c DGF, 2010 ONCA 27 (CanLII), 250 CCC (3d) 291, par Feldman JA , au 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.")
  2. ↑ The Sexual Exploitation of Children in Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (November 2011), au p. 23
  3. ↑ R c Bock, 2010 ONSC 3117 (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 2277 (SCJ), par Henderson J, au para 31
  4. ↑ , ibid., au 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]

  1. ↑ R c Labre, 2013 ONCJ 116 (CanLII), par Lalande J , au para 18
  2. ↑ , ibid., au para 18
  3. ↑ R c EO, 2003 CanLII 2017 (ON CA), [2003] OJ No 563, 169 OAC 110 (CA), par Cronk JA, au para 7
  4. ↑ e.g. see R c Saddlemire, 2007 ONCA 36 (CanLII), 216 CCC (3d) 119, par MacFarland JA , au para 53
  5. ↑ , ibid., au para 54
  6. ↑ R c Garcia, 2009 BCSC 407 (CanLII), [2009] BCJ No 581(S.C.), par Griffin J, aux paras 14 and 15
  7. ↑ http://filecache.drivetheweb.com/np2cr_nca-chapters/12784/download/Peter+Collins+Handouts.pdf
  8. ↑ R c Schneider, 2008 ONCJ 250 (CanLII), 77 WCB (2d) 573, par Wong J, au 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” or a "strict mathematical formula."[1] The difference between file counts are less important as the overall magnitude.[2] It is necessary that the sentencing judge not overlook the "importance of the content of the materials and other relevant considerations" such as the frequency of accessing and use of the materials.[3]

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.[4]

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.[5]

  1. ↑ R c Sputnikoff, 2013 SKPC 57 (CanLII), 416 Sask R 307, par Agnew J, aux paras 36 to 37
    R c Walker, 2021 ONCA 863 (CanLII), par curiam, au para 8
    R c McCaw, 2023 ONCA 8 (CanLII), par Trotter JA, au para 32
  2. ↑ e.g. , ibid., au para 37
  3. ↑ Walker, supra, au para 8
    McCaw, supra, au para 32
  4. ↑ R c Von Gunten, 2006 QCCA 286 (CanLII), par Pelletier JA, au para 19
  5. ↑ R c Andrukonis, 2012 ABCA 148 (CanLII), 545 WAC 306, par curiam, aux 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]

  1. images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity;
  2. sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child;
  3. non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children;
  4. penetrative sexual activity between children and adults; and
  5. 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]

Investigative "Categories"

An investigator who reviews imagery for child pornography will generally categorize the images into two or more categories:[6]

  1. Category 1: "those depicting children under the age of eighteen years and the focus of the image or video is primarily on the genitals or anus or the child is involved in a sexually explicit act."[7]
  2. Category 2: "those depicting children under the age of eighteen who are naked, and although the focus of the image or video is not primarily on the genitals or anus, the image or video appears to be for a sexual purpose"[8]
Drawings and Written CP

Imagery that does not contain live children, such as anime can reduce the harmfulness of the offence, albeit the offence will still being abhorrent.[9]

  1. ↑ R c LaGue, 2013 MBQB 32 (CanLII), 287 Man R (2d) 204, par Perlmutter J, au para 19
    R c Brooks, 2010 MBPC 61 (CanLII), 263 Man R (2d) 186, par Lerner J
  2. ↑ R c Yau, 2011 ONSC 1009 (CanLII), OJ No 720, par MacDonnell J
  3. ↑ R c Missions, 2005 NSCA 82 (CanLII), 196 CCC (3d) 253, par Roscoe JA, au para 14
    LaGue, supra, au para 19
    R c Basov, 2015 MBCA 22 (CanLII), 315 Man R (2d) 222, par Beard JA
  4. ↑ R c Stupnikoff, 2013 SKPC 57 (CanLII), 416 Sask R 307, par Agnew J , au para 35
  5. ↑ e.g. R c CGL, 2013 ABCA 140 (CanLII), 544 AR 360, par curiam -- concerning collection of child modelling images
  6. ↑ R c Harvey-Pike, 2018 ABPC 266 (CanLII) (hyperliens fonctionnels en attente), par Collinson J, aux paras 6 to 10
  7. ↑ , ibid. at para 8
  8. ↑ , ibid. at para 10
  9. ↑ R c AR, 2018 ONCJ 613 (CanLII), au para 21

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]

  1. ↑ R c LM, 2008 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 163, par LeBel J, au para 31

Possession and Accessing Sentencing Principles

Possession is a "very important contributing element in the general problem of child pornography."[1] It is a "short step" away from being a distributor.[2]

The distinction between a charge of accessing or possessing appears to make little difference in the duration of penalty.[3] The offence of accessing should not be considered any less serious an offence as possession.[4]

Some have stated that the collector bears responsibility for the growth of these materials along with its creators.[5]

Objectives of Sentencing

The primary objective for sentencing in possession of child pornography is denunciation and general deterrence. [6]

Purpose

There are four identified dangers created by the possession of child pornography:[7]

  1. promotes cognitive distortions;
  2. fuels fantasies that incite offenders to offend;[8]
  3. use to groom and seduce victims;
  4. children are abused in the production of child pornography involving real children.

There is some recognition of a fifth purpose wherein it contributes to the market for child pornography which drives the production of the materials.[9]

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.[10]

The materials encourage potential offenders to groom and seduce children for the purpose of making child pornography.[11]

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.[12]

  1. ↑ Stroempl, supra
    R c WC, [2004] OJ No 5985 (SCJ)(*pas de liens CanLII) , at paras 20-22
  2. ↑ , ibid., at paras 20-26
    Stroempl, supra, au p. 191
    R c Lisk, 1998 CanLII 4737 (ON CA), [1998] OJ No 1456 (CA), par curiam, au para 1
  3. ↑ R c Bejasa, 2010 ABPC 249 (CanLII), par Fradsham J, aux paras 33 to 34
  4. ↑ R c Hammond, 2009 ABCA 415 (CanLII), 249 CCC (3d) 340, par Watson JA, au para 6
  5. ↑ R c Murty, 2021 ONSC 2801 (CanLII), par Kelly J, au para 36
    R c Kwok, 2007 CanLII 2942 (ON SC), 72 WCB (2d) 533, par Molloy J, au para 49
  6. ↑ R c Stroempl, 1995 CanLII 2283 (ON CA), 105 CCC (3d) 187, par Morden ACJ, au p. 191
    R c Hewlett, 2002 ABCA 179 (CanLII), 167 CCC (3d) 425, par Fraser CJ, au p. 432 (ABCA)
    R c Hunt, 2002 ABCA 155 (CanLII), [2002] AJ No 831, par curiam, au para 41
    R c Missions, 2005 NSCA 82 (CanLII), 196 CCC (3d) 253, par Roscoe JA
    R c Cohen, 2001 CanLII 3862 (ON CA), 49 WCB (2d) 555, par curiam
  7. ↑ R c Fisher, 2022 SKCA 78 (CanLII), par J, au para 39
  8. ↑ Sharpe, supra, aux paras 85 to 94
    R c Steadman, 2001 ABQB 1004 (CanLII), [2001] AJ No 1563, par Gallant J, aux paras 21 and 22
  9. ↑ R c Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 45, par McLachlin CJ, au para 28
    R c Fisher, 2007 NBPC 15 (CanLII), [2007] NBJ No 129, par Cumming J, au para 16
    Stroempl, supra, au p. 191
  10. ↑ Sharpe, supra, aux paras 85 to 94
  11. ↑ Sharpe, supra, au 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.")
  12. ↑ e.g. R c Durnford, 2006 CanLII 34694 (NL PC), par Gorman J, au para 77

Ranges

Pre-Friesen

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]

In BC, the range for a first-time offender accessing CP would be between 4 months and 2 years.[3] With sympathetic circumstances and a relatively small collection, the range would be between 45 days to 9 months.[4]

  1. ↑ R c Hilderman, 2010 ABPC 183 (CanLII), AWLD 4452, par Fraser J, au para 15
  2. ↑ R c Kroeker, 2014 SKQB 137 (CanLII), 456 Sask R 41, par Keene J, au para 51
  3. ↑ R c Petne, 2020 BCPC 200 (CanLII), par Gouge J, au para 11
    R c Alexander, 2019 BCCA 100 (CanLII), par MacKenzie JA, aux paras 37 to 38
  4. ↑ R c Walker, 2017 BCSC 1301 (CanLII), 386 CRR (2d) 222, par Brown J, au para 43

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.

The prohibition's objective includes preventing offenders from sending a message that "sex with children can and should be pursued."[1] It also seeks to prevent the "normalization" of child sexual abuse and prevent dissemination of the idea that children are sex objects to be abused.[2]

Gravity

The offence can range from "recording reprehensible non-consensual sexual acts to pure voyeurism."[3] While all are forms of abuse, "surreptitious recording" of change rooms is on the lower end of the scale.[4]

The gravity of the making of child pornography is different from the possession and access, as making usually involves the direct abuse of children.[5]


Consideration of how many images are made is secondary for the purpose of sentencing to the question of "how" the material was made.[6]

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.[7]

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.[8]

  1. ↑ R c Beattie, 2005 CanLII 10273 (ON CA), 201 CCC (3d) 533, par Laskin JA
    R c Levin, 2015 ONCJ 290 (CanLII), par McArthur J, au para 100
  2. ↑ , ibid.
  3. ↑ R c Gryba, 2016 SKQB 123 (CanLII), SJ No 218, par Popescul CJ, au para 63
  4. ↑ , ibid., au p. 63
  5. ↑ R c Rhode, 2019 SKCA 17 (CanLII), 372 CCC (3d) 442, par Caldwell JA, au 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. ")
  6. ↑ , ibid., au para 89
  7. ↑ R c Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 45, par McLachlin CJ, au 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.")
  8. ↑ R c GJM, 2015 MBCA 103 (CanLII), 126 WCB (2d) 117, par Mainella JA, au 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]

  1. ↑ R c Gryba, 2016 SKQB 123 (CanLII), SJ No 218, par Popescul CJ, au para 64, also citing s. 718.01 and 718.2(a)(ii.1) and (iii)
  2. ↑ R c GJM, 2015 MBCA 103 (CanLII), 126 WCB (2d) 117, par Mainella JA, au para 15
  3. ↑ R c Rhode, 2019 SKCA 17 (CanLII), 372 CCC (3d) 442, par Caldwell JA, au 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]

  1. ↑ R c GJM, 2015 MBCA 103 (CanLII), 126 WCB (2d) 117, par Mainella JA, au para 15

Distribution and Making Available Sentencing Principles

The offence of distribution is more serious than possession becuase it creates a "broader market" and puts more material in circulation. The more that it circulates the greater the abuse becomes on the child.[1]

The primary principles for distribution offences are denunciation and deterrence.[2]

Distribution through the internet is particularly despicable as "it is unbounded once the materials are sent out to one person."[3] Files made available online for circulation will allow the "virtual abuse" to "go on forever."[4]

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 re-victimize them. [5]

  1. ↑ R c Bock, 2010 ONSC 3117 (CanLII), par Henderson J, au para 32 ("...offence of making available child pornography is incrementally more serious than simple possession as the distribution of child pornography creates a broader market and puts more images in circulation. Each possession, viewing, sharing, downloading, or uploading can be seen as a repetition of the initial hands-on abuse. The more pornographic images that are in circulation and the greater the distribution, the more significant the abuse of the child becomes.")
  2. ↑ R c B(TL), 2007 ABCA 61 (CanLII), 218 CCC (3d) 11, par Fraser CJ leave to SCC refused
  3. ↑ R c Weber, 2003 CanLII 28579 (ON CA), [2003] OJ No 3306 (CA), par Feldman JA, au para 16
  4. ↑ R c Kwok, 2007 CanLII 2942 (ON SC), 72 WCB (2d) 533, par Molloy J, au para 51
  5. ↑ R c DGF, 2010 ONCA 27 (CanLII), 250 CCC (3d) 291, par Feldman JA, au para 25

Factors

Aggravating factors include: [1]

  1. Where the images were shown or distributed to a child.
  2. the amount of images or videos collected[2]
  3. 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.
  4. 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”
  5. 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.
  6. 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]
  7. the degree of intrusion and repulsivity of any sexual acts depicted. This is in part captured by the categories in Missions[4]
  8. 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]
  9. signs on potential distribution or production.
  10. related criminal record;
  11. evidence that the offender has pedophilic tendencies or diagnosis of paedophilia;
  12. the predatory nature of the offence;[6]

Mitigating factors considered:[7]

  1. the youthful age of the offender;
  2. the otherwise good character of the offender;
  3. the extent to which the offender has shown insight into his problem;
  4. whether he has demonstrated genuine remorse;
  5. whether the offender is willing to submit to treatment and counseling or has already undertaken such treatment;
  6. the existence of a guilty plea; and
  7. 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]

  1. ↑ 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 c WAE, 2009 CanLII 42861 (NL PC), 890 APR 214, par Gorman J, au para 76
    R c Smith, 2008 CanLII 59107 (ON SC), par Clark J
    R c Kwok, 2007 CanLII 2942 (ON SC), 72 WCB (2d) 533, par Molloy J
    See also: R c Mallett, 2005 CanLII 32927 (ON SC), [2005] OJ No 3868, par Hill J
  2. ↑ R c Donnelly, 2010 BCSC 1523 (CanLII), par Schultes J, au para 36 Judge discusses the importance of the number of images to the range of sentence
  3. ↑ Mallett, supra, au para 15
  4. ↑ R c Missions, 2005 NSCA 82 (CanLII), 196 CCC (3d) 253, par Roscoe JA
    see also Mallett, supra, au para 15
  5. ↑ Mallett, supra, au para 15
  6. ↑ R c Innes, 2008 ABCA 129 (CanLII), 231 CCC (3d) 48, par curiam, au para 12
  7. ↑ Kwok, supra
    R c Parise, [2002] OJ No 2513 (ONCJ) (*pas de liens CanLII)
    Mallett, supra, aux paras 15 to 16 (ONSC)
    R c Smith, 2008 CanLII 59107 (ON SC), par Clark J
  8. ↑ R c B(TL), 2007 ABCA 61 (CanLII), 218 CCC (3d) 11, par Fraser CJ leave to SCC refused, au para 28
  9. ↑ R c Stupnikoff, 2013 SKPC 57 (CanLII), 416 Sask R 307, par Agnew J , au para 27
  10. ↑ R c Schneider, 2008 ONCJ 250 (CanLII), 77 WCB (2d) 573, par Wong J, au para 43
  11. ↑ R c Bertrand, 2014 QCCQ 5233 (CanLII), par Boyer J, au para 39
    R c Von Gunten, 2006 QCCA 286 (CanLII), par Gendreau J
  12. ↑ R c Bejasa, 2010 ABPC 249 (CanLII), par Fradsham J, aux paras 16 and 17

Range

Voir également: Child Pornography (Sentencing Cases)

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]

  1. ↑ R c Shelton, 2006 ABCA 190 (CanLII), AR 177, par Fruman JA , au 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

Conditional Sentence

Voir également: Mandatory_Minimum_Penalties#Consequence_of_Unconstitutional_Minimums et Conditional Sentence Orders

In most jurisdictions, the mandatory minimums associated with child pornography have been found to be unconstitutional.[1] Consequently, conditional sentences are available in most provinces.

One judge suggested weighing the strength of the urges to access child pornography against the deterrence effect of staying home for a year or so.[2]

Exceptional Circumstances

In several jurisdictions, the accused must show that he has "exceptional circumstances" to warrant a conditional sentence.[3]

Sentences of incarceration will "ordinarily follow" convictions for child sexual offences. A conditional sentence will "rarely be appropriate" and limited to "exceptional circumstances" where incarceration give rise to hardships that "could not adequately be addressed within the correctional facility."[4]

  1. ↑ see Mandatory_Minimum_Penalties#Consequence_of_Unconstitutional_Minimums
  2. ↑ R c Kwok, 2007 CanLII 2942 (ON SC), au para 57
  3. ↑ R c Alexander, 2019 BCCA 100 (CanLII), par MacKenzie JA, au para 39 ("At sentencing, the appellant asserted a CSO was a fit sentence for him as the facts of this case are analogous to those in Swaby BCSC. However, the judge accurately distinguished Mr. Swaby’s circumstances from those of the appellant. Moreover, recent authorities say incarceration will be necessary in all cases of possession of child pornography, except in exceptional cases, to appropriately emphasize the principles of denunciation and deterrence. I do not consider the present case to be exceptional.") R c Mathiesen, 2023 NSSC 314 (CanLII), par Hoskins J, au para 193
    R c Rozell, 2023 ABKB 527 (CanLII), par Michalyshyn J, aux paras 37 to 41
  4. ↑ R c MM, 2022 ONCA 441 (CanLII), par curiam, aux paras 14 and 15 ("Conditional sentences for sexual offences against children will only rarely be appropriate. Their availability must be limited to exceptional circumstances that render incarceration inappropriate – for example, where it gives rise to a medical hardship that could not adequately be addressed within the correctional facility. It would not be appropriate to enumerate exceptional circumstances here and we make no attempt to do so. Suffice it to say that no exceptional circumstances are present in this case. A sentence of imprisonment should have been imposed.")

Kienapple

Possession and making can be the subject of the Kienapple Principle. [1]

  1. ↑ R c Brunton, 2014 ONCJ 120 (CanLII), par Harris J, au para 28

Ancillary Sentencing Orders

Voir également: Ancillary Orders
Offence-specific Orders
Ordonnances Condamnation Description
DNA Orders s. 163.1
SOIRA Orders s. 163.1
  • Sur déclaration de culpabilité en vertu de s. 163.1(2) or (3), une « infraction principale » énumérée à l'art. 490.011(1)(a), une Ordonnance LERDS est présumée obligatoire à moins que « il n'y ait aucun lien entre le fait de rendre l'ordonnance et le but d'aider les services de police à prévenir ou à enquêter. crimes de nature sexuelle en exigeant [l'enregistrement]" ou "l'impact de l'ordonnance sur la personne, y compris sur sa vie privée ou sa liberté, serait tout à fait disproportionné par rapport à l'intérêt public consistant à protéger la société par une prévention ou une enquête efficace sur les crimes de nature sexuelle". nature sexuelle, à réaliser par [enregistrement]".
      • Si le délinquant a déjà été reconnu coupable d'une « infraction primaire », la durée est « à vie » (article 490.012(2)).
      • Dans le cas contraire, la durée est de « 20 ans » puisque l'infraction est passible d'une « peine d'emprisonnement maximale de 10 ou 14 ans » (alinéa 490.013(2)(b))).
      • Il existe une option de résiliation anticipée en vertu de l'article. 490.015 disponible après 10 ans (si commande 20 ans) ou 20 ans (si commande à vie).

« Notez qu'en fonction de l'art. 490.011(2) du Code, les ordonnances SOIRA ne sont pasdisponibles lors de la détermination de la peine en vertu de la Loi sur le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents

  • Sur déclaration de culpabilité en vertu de s. 163.1(4) or (4.1), une « infraction principale » énumérée à l'art. 490.011(1)(a), une Ordonnance LERDS est présumée obligatoire à moins que « il n'y ait aucun lien entre le fait de rendre l'ordonnance et le but d'aider les services de police à prévenir ou à enquêter. crimes de nature sexuelle en exigeant [l'enregistrement]" ou "l'impact de l'ordonnance sur la personne, y compris sur sa vie privée ou sa liberté, serait tout à fait disproportionné par rapport à l'intérêt public consistant à protéger la société par une prévention ou une enquête efficace sur les crimes de nature sexuelle". nature sexuelle, à réaliser par [enregistrement]".
      • Si le délinquant a déjà été reconnu coupable d'une « infraction primaire », la durée est « à vie » (article 490.012(2)).
      • Autrement, la durée est de « 10 ans » lorsque l'infraction a fait l'objet de « poursuites sommaires ou si la peine maximale d'emprisonnement pour l'infraction est de deux ou cinq ans » (alinéa 490.013(2)(a))) ou « 20 ans » lorsque l'infraction est passible d'une « peine d'emprisonnement maximale de 10 ou 14 ans » (alinéa 490.013(2)b)).
      • Il existe une option de résiliation anticipée en vertu de l'article. 490.015 disponible après 5 ans (si commande 10 ans), 10 ans (si commande 20 ans), ou 20 ans (si commande à vie).

« Notez qu'en fonction de l'art. 490.011(2) du Code, les ordonnances SOIRA ne sont pasdisponibles lors de la détermination de la peine en vertu de la Loi sur le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents

Section 161 Orders s. 163.1
  • S'il est reconnu coupable en vertu de s. 163.1, le juge peut rendre une ordonnance 161 « discrétionnaire ».
Delayed Parole Order s. 163.1
  • Les périodes d'emprisonnement de 2 ans ou plus pour des condamnations en vertu de s. 163.1 sont admissibles à une ordonnance de libération conditionnelle différée en vertu de l'art. 743.6(1) exigeant que le délinquant purge au moins « la moitié de la peine ou dix ans, selon la durée la plus courte », « lorsque la dénonciation de l'infraction ou l'objectif de dissuasion spécifique ou générale l'exige ».
Forfeiture Order—Computer-related (s.164.2) s. 163.1
  • must be "used" or "owned" by the offender in relation to a conviction of child pornography, child luring or arrange sex offence against a child.
  • application to superior court of the province only.
Ordonnances générales de détermination de peine
Ordonnance Condamnation Description
Ordonnance de non-communication pendant la détention du délinquant (l'art. 743.21) tout Le juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'ordonner qu'il soit interdit au contrevenant « de communiquer... avec une victime, un témoin ou une autre personne » pendant sa détention, sauf s'il « estime [qu'il] est nécessaire » de communiquer avec eux.
Ordonnances de restitution (l'art. 738) tout Une ordonnance discrétionnaire est disponible pour des éléments tels que la valeur de remplacement de la propriété ; les dommages matériels résultant d'un préjudice, de frais de fuite d'un conjoint ; ou certaines dépenses découlant de la commission d'une infraction aux articles 402.2 ou 403.
Suramende pour la victime (l'art. 737) tout Une surtaxe discrétionnaire au titre de l'art. 737 de 30 % de toute amende imposée, de 100 $ par déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire ou de 200 $ par déclaration de culpabilité par acte criminel. Si l'infraction survient à compter du 23 octobre 2013, l'ordonnance comporte des montants minimums plus faibles (15 %, 50 $ ou 100 $).
Ordonnances générales de confiscation
Confiscation Condamnation Description
Confiscation des produits de la criminalité (art. 462.37(1) ou (2.01)) tout Lorsque la culpabilité est établie pour un acte criminel en vertu du Code ou de la LRCDAS et que les biens sont des " produits de la criminalité " et que l'infraction a été " commise à l'égard de ces biens ", les biens sont confisqués au profit de Sa Majesté le Roi à la demande de la Couronne. NB : ne s'applique pas aux infractions sommaires.
L'amende tenant lieu de confiscation (art. 462.37(3)) tout Lorsqu'une Cour est convaincue qu'une ordonnance de confiscation des produits de la criminalité en vertu de l'article 462.37(1) ou (2.01) peut être rendue, mais que les biens ne peuvent pas être "soumis à une ordonnance", la Cour "peut" ordonner une amende d'un "montant égal à la valeur des biens". En cas de non-paiement de l'amende, un jugement par défaut imposant une période d'incarcération sera rendu.
La confiscation d'armes et d'armes à feu (art. 491). 491) tout Lorsqu'il y a déclaration de culpabilité pour une infraction où une "arme, une imitation d'arme à feu, un dispositif prohibé, toute munition, toute munition prohibée ou une substance explosive a été utilisée lors de la commission de [l'] infraction et que cette chose a été saisie et détenue", ou "qu'une personne a commis une infraction qui implique, ou dont l'objet est une arme à feu, une arbalète, une arme prohibée, une arme à autorisation restreinte, un dispositif prohibé, des munitions, des munitions prohibées ou une substance explosive a été saisi et détenu, que l'objet est une arme énumérée ou que l'objet connexe est lié à l'infraction", alors il y aura une ordonnance de confiscation "obligatoire". Cependant, en vertu de l'article 491(2), si le propriétaire légitime "n'a pas participé à l'infraction" et que le juge n'a "aucun motif raisonnable de croire que l'objet serait ou pourrait être utilisé pour commettre une infraction", l'objet doit être restitué au propriétaire légitime.
Confiscation de biens infractionnels (art. 490. 1) tout En cas de déclaration de culpabilité pour un acte criminel, " tout bien est un bien infractionnel " lorsque a) un acte criminel est commis en vertu de la présente loi ou de la Loi sur la corruption d'agents publics étrangers, b) il est utilisé de quelque manière que ce soit dans le cadre de la perpétration d'une telle infraction, ou c) il est destiné à être utilisé dans le cadre de la perpétration d'une telle infraction. Ces biens doivent être confisqués au profit de Sa Majesté du chef de la province. NB : ne s'applique pas aux infractions sommaires.

Record Suspensions and Pardons

Les condamnations en vertu de s. 163.1 [child pornography] sont inéligibles aux suspensions du casier conformément à l'art. 4 de la « Loi sur le casier judiciaire ». Une exception peut être faite en vertu de l'art. 4(3) pour les infractions pour lesquelles il n’existe aucun lien de « confiance », d’« autorité » ou de « dépendance » ; pas de violence, de menaces ou de coercition ; et la différence d'âge entre la victime et le délinquant est inférieure à 5 ans.

See Also

Récupérée de « https://carnetdroitpenal.ca/fr/index.php?title=Condamnations_pour_pornographie_juvénile&oldid=7613 »