R. v. Y.

R. v. Y.

The photographs objectively had as their dominant characteristic a sexual depiction of a person under 18 and thus constituted child pornography; the private use defence failed because images were obtained by deceit and exploitation; the extortion attempts were established by the threatening messages; accused enabled and facilitated the extortion and subsequent dissemination by creating fake accounts, granting remote access, storing images with pornographic material and failing to terminate the remote access, making him a party to both the attempted extortion and possession for the purpose of distribution despite absence of direct evidence of typing or sending the distributed files.

Citation
2015 NSPC 14
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Y; Complainant: A
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Youth Criminal (criminal Code) / Trial Decision Conviction
Outcome
Convicted on amended Count 1 (attempted extortion), Count 2 (possession of child pornography), Count 3 (possession for purpose of distribution); acquitted on mischief count.
Legal Topics
Extortion, Possession of Child Pornography, Possession for Purpose of Distribution, Party Liability, Wilful Blindness, Private Use Defence, Abandonment Defence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Justice Cybercrime Child Pornography Extortion Possession of Child Pornography Possession for Purpose of Distribution Party Liability +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Y

Accused

A

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Youth Criminal (criminal Code) / Trial Decision Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Do the photographs constitute child pornography under s.163.1?
  2. 2 Does the private use defence apply?
  3. 3 Were the messages extortionate?

Ratio Decidendi

The photographs objectively had as their dominant characteristic a sexual depiction of a person under 18 and thus constituted child pornography; the private use defence failed because images were obtained by deceit and exploitation; the extortion attempts were established by the threatening messages; accused enabled and facilitated the extortion and subsequent dissemination by creating fake accounts, granting remote access, storing images with pornographic material and failing to terminate the remote access, making him a party to both the attempted extortion and possession for the purpose of distribution despite absence of direct evidence of typing or sending the distributed files.

Court Disposition

Convicted on amended Count 1 (attempted extortion), Count 2 (possession of child pornography), Count 3 (possession for purpose of distribution); acquitted on mischief count.

Orders

  • Convicted: amended Count 1 - attempted extortion contrary to s.346(1.1) Criminal Code
  • Convicted: Count 2 - possession of child pornography contrary to s.163.1(4) Criminal Code