SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2012 BCCA 100, Mr. A had been convicted of possessing child pornography and the charge was stayed on the Kienapple principles.
Ms. T, Mr. A’s common-law partner, found child pornography on Mr. A’s computer. A police search of the computer found “overwhelming evidence” that the computer was used to access child pornography, including videos on the hard drive, file folders with names suggesting child pornography had been stored on the computer, internet searches, and file sharing software that had been used over several years.
The question at trial was who accessing the child pornography. Mr. A, Ms. T and her nine-year-old child were the people who had access to the computer. Ms. T had reported the child pornography and the court found that it was Mr. A who had accessed it.
He appealed his conviction and challenged the validity of the search warrant.
The court found that Mr. A could not raise the issue of the validity of the search warrant upon appeal if he did not raise it at trial. It also found that the trial judge had not erred in finding that Mr. A was the one who accessed the child pornography and dismissed his appeal of his conviction.
Also see: 2009 BCSC 1949 (Trial).
Criminal Offence(s): Child Pornography Offences