SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2009 NBQB 232, 50-year-old mechanical engineer, Mr. S, was convicted of possessing child pornography. A key piece of evidence against him was a computer CD containing a slideshow of numerous images of sexually explicit behaviour involving children and adult males. It was asserted that Mr. S was a “continued learner” who used the material as a “representative sample” of his curiosity rather than for sexual gratification. The Court took issue with the 24 letters of support for S, stating that they did not seem to grasp the severity of his actions. Defence counsel proposed 45-days imprisonment (the minimum mandatory punishment under the child pornography provision) based on mitigating factors, such as S’s ties to the community, lack of prior record and exemplary support system. Although no victim impact statements were filed, the Court emphasized that Mr. S had committed “a sex offence involving young children” and noted:
We do not have anguished accounts written out by the girls about how awful they would feel to know that these disgusting photographs of them were being spread on the internet and seen and set up to be re-seen as a slide show by Mr. [S]. The absence of victim impact statements (which are often read aloud in a sobbing voice by the tragic victims of sexual activity) does not mean that there are no victims.
Ultimately S was sentenced to 4-months imprisonment (less time served), 3-years probation during which he was prohibited from visiting pornography sites on the internet, from using software to wipe clean his internet browser history and from being alone with anyone under 16, and was required to consent to the police attending his home between 8 am and 8 pm to make a copy of his hard drive so that they could check it, and to provide a DNA sample. S was also ordered to forfeit certain materials seized during the investigation.
 2009 NBQB 232 at 7.
Criminal Offence(s): Child Pornography Offences