R. v. Kerster

R. v. Kerster

Where an accused has the intent to commit the substantive offence in s.212(4) and has taken steps beyond mere preparation in furtherance of that intent, a conviction for attempt is proper even if the alleged victim was fictitious; the absence of a real person is a deficiency in the actus reus that renders completion...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 BCSC 230
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: George Herman Kerster
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (reasons for Conviction)
Outcome
Accused found guilty of attempting to obtain, for consideration, the sexual services of a person he believed to be under 18 years
Legal Topics
Attempt, Procuring/obtaining Sexual Services, Impossibility Defence, Actus Reus and Mens Rea of Attempt, Interpretation of 'person' in Statutory Offence, Precedent: Dynar
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Inchoate Offences Evidence Police Undercover Operations Attempt Procuring/obtaining Sexual Services Impossibility Defence +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

George Herman Kerster

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (reasons for Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a conviction for attempt under s.212(4) is available where the alleged victim was fictitious
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a real person is an essential element of the attempted offence
  3. 3 Whether the accused took steps beyond mere preparation required by s.24(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Where an accused has the intent to commit the substantive offence in s.212(4) and has taken steps beyond mere preparation in furtherance of that intent, a conviction for attempt is proper even if the alleged victim was fictitious; the absence of a real person is a deficiency in the actus reus that renders completion impossible but does not preclude liability for attempt under s.24(1), subject to the distinction that some offences (eg sexual assault) require a real victim for acts beyond mere preparation.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty of attempting to obtain, for consideration, the sexual services of a person he believed to be under 18 years

Orders

  • Convicted of attempted offence contrary to s.212(4) of the Criminal Code