R vs Sharpe Law Summary
R vs Sharpe
(1)Sources: R v Sharpe Decisions, February 8/2013
CBC NEWS, R vs Sharpe: Excerpts from the Supreme Court ruling on Child Pornography, March 8/2004
Title: R vs Sharpe
Who: John Sharpe
Date: January 26, 2001
(2) Case Facts:
-Accusations were made about John Sharpe that he had possession of child pornography tapes
-Led police to an investigation of his house, finding multiple disks labeled ‘boyabuse’
-Sharpe was charged with two counts of possession of child pornography, under section 163 of the code, as well as two counts of possession of child pornography with the intent of distribution or sale under section 163 of the code.
-Child pornography is described as: “Includes visual representations of 18 years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity and/or visual representation. Child Pornography also includes representations/written material that advocated or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years, that would be an offence under the criminal code.” As described under section 163 of the criminal code.
-Sharpe brought up a preliminary motion which challenged the constitutionality of section 163 of the code prior to his trial
-Argued that the violation of his constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression was taken away from him
-Crown conceded that section 163 infringed upon section 2(b) of the charter, but later argued that the infringement was justifiable under section 1 of the charter
-Both the judge and the British Columbia court of Appeal ruled that the prohibition of the possession of child pornography as defined under section 163 of the code, was not justifiable enough in a free and democratic society.
(3) Legal Issues:
1. Do you think that it should be legal to possess child pornography, as long as it is for personal and private use?
2. Do you think that Sharpe should face jail time for his possessions?
3. Do you think the charges Sharpe had against him were correct?
(1)Sources: R v Sharpe Decisions, February 8/2013
CBC NEWS, R vs Sharpe: Excerpts from the Supreme Court ruling on Child Pornography, March 8/2004
Title: R vs Sharpe
Who: John Sharpe
Date: January 26, 2001
(2) Case Facts:
-Accusations were made about John Sharpe that he had possession of child pornography tapes
-Led police to an investigation of his house, finding multiple disks labeled ‘boyabuse’
-Sharpe was charged with two counts of possession of child pornography, under section 163 of the code, as well as two counts of possession of child pornography with the intent of distribution or sale under section 163 of the code.
-Child pornography is described as: “Includes visual representations of 18 years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity and/or visual representation. Child Pornography also includes representations/written material that advocated or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years, that would be an offence under the criminal code.” As described under section 163 of the criminal code.
-Sharpe brought up a preliminary motion which challenged the constitutionality of section 163 of the code prior to his trial
-Argued that the violation of his constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression was taken away from him
-Crown conceded that section 163 infringed upon section 2(b) of the charter, but later argued that the infringement was justifiable under section 1 of the charter
-Both the judge and the British Columbia court of Appeal ruled that the prohibition of the possession of child pornography as defined under section 163 of the code, was not justifiable enough in a free and democratic society.
(3) Legal Issues:
1. Do you think that it should be legal to possess child pornography, as long as it is for personal and private use?
2. Do you think that Sharpe should face jail time for his possessions?
3. Do you think the charges Sharpe had against him were correct?