|REGINA||)||REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT|
|v.||)||OF THE HONOURABLE|
|VERNON BOYD LOGAN||)||JUDGE SAUNDERSON|
|Counsel for the Crown||Bruce Goddard|
|Counsel for the Defendant||Daniel Nowosad|
|Place of Hearing||Port Hardy|
|Date of Hearing||December 15, 1995|
Jewell, Cassidy, and Stroempl
all contain significant aggravating factors.
Marr, Higgins, and the case at bar contain none.
``While a direct link between obscenity and harm to society may be difficult, if not impossible, to establish, it is reasonable to presume that exposure to images bears a causal relationship to changes in attitudes and beliefs.''R. v. Butler (1992), 11 C.R. (4th) 137 at p.177.
``The purpose of a law specifically addressing child pornography is to deal with the sexual exploitation of children and to make a statement regarding the inappropriate use and portrayal of children in media and art which have sexual aspects.
Our message is that children need to be protected from the harmful effects of child sexual abuse and exploitation and are not appropriate sexual partners.''
``The public interest is not to be equated with, nor decided by, general expressions of public concern. The [discharge] section ... is specifically directed towards promoting rehabilitation in appropriate cases ....''
R. v. Bigg (unreported), January 21, 1994, British Columbia Provincial Court, North Vancouver, No. 24993.
- The public interest cannot and should not be equated with public concern -- if it exists -- over the severity or leniency of sentences; and
- The only basis upon which the term can be applied rationally in any given case is by asking the question: Is it against the public interest not to warn the public at large about the accused through the medium of a criminal record?
|Port Hardy, B.C.||(Judge's initials)|
|January 23, 1996|