Supreme Court ruling against minimum sentences for child porn offences condemned by Ford, Moe and Smith

In a divisive conclusion, the rural area’s top out margaret court struck land mandatory minimum jail sentences for accessing or possessing child pornography — deeming them unconstitutional. 

Friday’s ruling not only split the bench 5-4, but has received swift backlash. 

The Supreme Court of Canada was asked to weigh in on an appeal from Quebec involving two separate cases involving child pornography offences. 

In both cases, the men pleaded guilty to having hundreds of images of children, some as young as three, being abused. Both of them challenged the mandatory minimum sentences for their crimes arguing they were unconstitutional because they could lead to grossly disproportionate punishment.

The sentencing judge in Quebec decided in their favour and the Crown appealed to all the up to the Supreme Court. 

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the one-year prison sentence for accessing and possesing child pornography set out in the Criminal Code violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

The top court was asked to weigh in exclusively on the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate. 

The majority narrowly affirmed a ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which said the mandatory minimum sentences violated the Charter’s protection against cruel or unusual punishment

Writing for the majority, Justice Mary Moreau argued there’s a range of circumstances that could lead to convictions of possession or access to child pornography.

“They capture both the well‑organized offender who, over the years, has accumulated thousands of files showing prepubescent victims, and the young 18‑year‑old offender who, one day, keeps and views a file showing a 17‑year‑old victim that was sent to the offender without them having requested it,” the decision read.  

Moreau wrote that “in the age of digital communication” that last scenario “is not uncommon.” 

Writing for the dissenting voices,  justices Richard Wagner and Suzanne Côté said they would have allowed the appeal. 

“The censure of society and the law must be reflected consistently and rigorously in the sentences imposed on offenders who are guilty of sexual offences against minors,” said their reason. 

“Through the imposition of more severe sentences, the justice system expresses society’s deep and rightful indignation” 

Conservatives were swift to condemn the majority’s decision.

In a statement, the federal party called the decision a disgusting and cruel insult to victims.

“Any normal person who reads this decision would be disgusted, and it is outrageous that child predators might walk free with less than a year in prison,” wrote Conservative MP Larry Brock, the party’s justice critic. 

Calling the majority decision "outrageous,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith urged the federal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to overturn the decision. 

“The possession of child pornography is a heinous crime, and even a one-year minimum sentence is already far too lenient,” she wrote.

Reporter

---

---