R. v. P.M. 2012 ONCA 162
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Evidence - Exclusion where prejudicial effect outweighs probative value
Over a period of approximately 13 months the accused had forced anal and vaginal intercourse with his daughter (complainant), who was then 13 and 14 years of age. There were approximately ten incidents. Police also found 1,837 images of child phonography on his computer, including videos and pictures of the complainant. He pleaded guilty to sexual assault, incest, sexual interference, making child pornography, possession of child pornography and careless storage of a firearm. The trial judge imposed a sentence of five years for the various sexual offences involving the accused’s daughter, one year consecutive for the child pornography offences and six months concurrent for a firearms offence making a total sentence of six years. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing that the judge erred by not viewing a disc containing images of child pornography tendered by the Crown as evidence and that the total sentence was unfit.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Epstein, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.
Editor’s Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book’s editorial policy or otherwise.