SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2017 BCSC 1868, Mr. P was convicted of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and possession of child pornography, related to sexual offences against five young victims who were between the ages of four and nine years old at the time of the abuse.
Four of the girls were Mr. P’s nieces. The abuse occurred at various points over a 12-year period. He talked to the girls about sex, showed them his genitals, touched them sexually, and demonstrated pedophilic abuse. He also showed some of the girls pornography on his computer
He argued that the sexual abuse was not for a sexual purpose, but was to educate the girls. He claimed that he was engaging in appropriate methods of sexual education to protect the girls from pedophiles. He adopted this concept after engaging in discussions on child sexual abuse, childhood development, and child sexual abuse on a website that advocated for this method. He believed he had superior knowledge about childhood sexuality and had a right to teach children about their sexuality in the way he believed would “pedophile-proof” the children. The court found that is behaviour violated the girls’ sexual integrity and were for the purpose of dominating her sexually, and were thus done for a sexual purpose.
Mr. P tried to argue the girls consented to the sexual activity, but consent is not a defence for children under the age of 16.
He was declared a dangerous offender. The court determined that sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching were serious personal injury offences. The sexual assault charges were conditionally stayed to avoid multiple convictions for the same wrongdoing. He was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment followed by a 10-year Long Term Supervision Order. Additional orders included a weapons’ ban for life, a DNA order, and a lifetime registration as a sex offender.
Also see: 2015 BCSC 618 (Trial).