SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2012 BCCA 94, Mr. Q, a 24-year-old man, was convicted of sexual interference, making child pornography, and obstruction of peace officers at trial.
Mr. Q met Ms. L, a 12-year-old girl, on a website when she responded to a profile he had post-ed. Mr. Q claimed that Ms. L said she was 16 years old both on the internet and when they met in person. He had told her he was 17 or 18 years old. They engaged in sexual intercourse be-tween the summer of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 and made a video them having sex. At one point, Mr. Q received an email from one of Ms. L’s former boyfriend’s telling him that she was in the 6th grade, which Ms. L denied that she was when he asked her about it. Ms. L’s mother also told Mr. Q it was illegal for him to engage with Ms. L sexually and that Ms. L was 12 years old, which Ms. L again denied.
Mr. Q had been charged with child luring, sexual interference, making child pornography, abduction, and obstruction of peace officers. He was acquitted of luring and abduction. He appealed the three other convictions, arguing that his acquittal on the luring offence should result in a not guilty verdict on the other charges because the same analysis of taking reasonable steps to determine the girl’s age should be applied across the other offences. However, the jury had acquitted him on different elements of those offences and had found that he failed to meet even the lowest test (honest belief) in taking steps to determine Ms. L’s age.