SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2017 BCPC 85, Mr. G, a 56-year-old man, pleaded guilty to child luring, making written child pornography, and breaching his recognizance for possessing a computer.
Mr. G began speaking with a 45-year-old woman online who had two children, aged 10 and 6 years old, who was looking for an “open family” on an internet channel for so-called “Dad-Daughter Sex”. This channel was known to be frequented by people who were interested in having sex with children. Mr. G was actually speaking with an undercover police officer.
Mr. G inquired about whether all four of them would all engage in sexual activity and stated that he preferred real life sexual activity and not just role playing. He described sexual encounters and discussions he had with children, told the woman that he had been convicted of a child pornography offence, and sent her a picture of a naked man. In their online conversation he offered grooming advice to the woman to facilitate sexual activity with the children. He also sent lengthy emails describing sexual encounters he had thought about having with her and her children.
Mr. G arranged to meet Ms. V and her children, and was arrested at the meeting place. A cellphone, sex toys, children’s toys and a hotel key were located in his car, and his computer was seized from the hotel room. Evidence of the chatroom conversation with the woman was discovered on his cellphone and computer, as well as communications with other persons, including children. Mr. G had a history of child pornography offences for which he had been prohibit-ed from contacting people under 14 for a period of time, including the time of his more recent offences. After his arrest for the current offence, he was released on bail and prohibited from possessing any wireless handheld devices that could access the internet and was banned from using the internet for any purpose. On several occasions he was found to have access to these types of devices, breaching his bail conditions.
Mr. G’s history of sexual interest in children had not diminished from his earlier offences, but instead escalated. He re-offended after taking sex offender treatment, and he had little accountability for the impact of his actions. He was sentenced to 40.4 months’ incarceration, 3 years’ probation, and additional orders included a prohibition on owning or possessing any de-vice that can access the internet unless approved by a parole officer for the purposes of communicating with family or for employment, limitations on being near or communicating with anyone under the age of 16, registration as a sex offender, and forfeiture of items used in the offence. The court determined that this was “one of those rare cases in which an almost total ban on Internet access is required” and prohibited him from using the internet for reasons other than counselling and employment when supervised.