R. v. Krock
- Citation
- 2020 BCSC 1858
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 8 October 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Possession of Child Pornography / Sentencing Oral Reasons for Sentence
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 8 October 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Possession of Child Pornography / Sentencing Oral Reasons for Sentence
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
After weighing aggravating factors (long duration 2010–2017, very large volume of images, extreme sexual violence and very young victims) against mitigating factors (first offender, guilty plea, genuine remorse, psychological vulnerabilities and low assessed risk to reoffend), the court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to satisfy objectives of general deterrence and denunciation but reduced the term below Crown's request because of the offender's reduced moral culpability and vulnerabilities; imposed 9 months imprisonment, 36 months probation with strict conditions (including treatment and internet ban), granted DNA and SOIRA orders, refused a s.161 order, and ordered forfeiture of seized items except specified exhibits.
Court disposition
Guilty plea accepted; sentenced to 9 months imprisonment; probation 36 months; ancillary orders imposed; one other count stayed.
Orders
- DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 (samples to be taken in custody)
- Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) registration pursuant to s. 490.012 for 20 years
- Forfeiture of all seized items except items listed on major exhibit flow sheet as Items 10 and 11 and additional exempt items 7,8,9,10,11,13,14,19,20,21
- Count 1 of the indictment stayed by Crown
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Crown Counsel: D. Blumenkrans; E. Miller (Articled Student)Terry Warren Krock
Accused Counsel: B.E. FitzpatrickAmounts and remedies
- Number of Images (lower Bound): 7,651
- Number of Images (upper Bound): 12,699
- Youngest Age Depicted (years): 1
- Oldest Age Depicted (years): 17
- Custodial Sentence (months): 9
- Probation (months): 36
- SOIRA Registration (years): 20
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Possession of Child Pornography / Sentencing Oral Reasons for Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentence for possession of child pornography given volume, duration and nature of material
- 02
Whether a custodial sentence or conditional/community sentence meets objectives of denunciation and general deterrence
- 03
Assessment of offender's moral culpability and risk to reoffend
- 04
Appropriateness of ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA, forfeiture, s.161)
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Crown argued a term of incarceration was necessary for denunciation and general deterrence and sought 12 months jail followed by three years probation plus ancillary orders.
- Respondent
- Defence argued a non‑custodial sentence served in the community (18–24 months in the community / CSO) plus three years probation and ancillary orders was sufficient, citing the offender's vulnerabilities and expert opinion that prison may be counterproductive.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Code ss. 718-718.2
Sentences must be individually tailored and proportionate to gravity and moral culpability
- 02
Criminal Code s. 718.01
Denunciation and deterrence are primary objectives in offences involving abuse of children
- 03
Criminal Code s. 718.2(a)(ii.1)
Abuse of a child is an aggravating circumstance for sentencing
- 04
R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2; R. v. Andrukonis, 2012 ABCA 148; R. v. Hammond (cited)
Possession of child pornography is harmful to children and contributes to a market that encourages production and distribution
- 05
R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5; R. v. Swaby (BC decisions)
A conditional sentence order can be a punitive sanction capable of denunciation and deterrence in appropriate cases
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
After weighing aggravating factors (long duration 2010–2017, very large volume of images, extreme sexual violence and very young victims) against mitigating factors (first offender, guilty plea, genuine remorse, psychological vulnerabilities and low assessed risk to reoffend), the court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to satisfy objectives of general deterrence and denunciation but reduced the term below Crown's request because of the offender's reduced moral culpability and vulnerabilities; imposed 9 months imprisonment, 36 months probation with strict conditions (including treatment and internet ban), granted DNA and SOIRA orders, refused a s.161 order, and ordered forfeiture of seized items except specified exhibits.
Obiter and limits
- Court compared this case to R. v. Swaby and R. v. Watson noting variability in sentencing ranges and that markedly reduced moral culpability can justify non‑custodial sentences in other cases.
- Court observed that negative collateral consequences of imprisonment (loss of home/employment) are unfortunate but not unusual and do not outweigh sentencing objectives.
- Court noted that offender's impairments were not as severe as in Swaby and therefore a CSO was not appropriate here.
Court disposition
Guilty plea accepted; sentenced to 9 months imprisonment; probation 36 months; ancillary orders imposed; one other count stayed.
- DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 (samples to be taken in custody)
- Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) registration pursuant to s. 490.012 for 20 years
- Forfeiture of all seized items except items listed on major exhibit flow sheet as Items 10 and 11 and additional exempt items 7,8,9,10,11,13,14,19,20,21
- Count 1 of the indictment stayed by Crown
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 8 October 2020
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Full judgment text is not available for this record.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.