R. v. Sharpe
| R v Sharpe | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: January 18, 19 2000 Judgment: January 26, 2001 |
|
| Full case name | Her Majesty The Queen v John Robin Sharpe |
| Citations | [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, 2001 SCC 2 |
| Ruling | Appeal allowed, charges remitted to trial. |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | McLachin C.J. (paras. 1 - 130), joined by Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ. |
| Concurrence | L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ. (paras. 131 - 243) |
R v Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, 2001 SCC 2, is a Canadian constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code as a valid limitation of the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In doing so, it reversed a ruling by the British Columbia Supreme Court. That opinion, issued by Justice Duncan Shaw, held that the law was what he called a "profound invasion" of rights of privacy and freedom of expression found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Prior to its reversal by the higher court, the ruling sparked extensive public complaints, and more than half of the Members of Parliament called for action by the Prime Minister to override the ruling.
It began in 1995 when John Robin Sharpe was returning from a trip to Amsterdam where he had traveled to meet Edward Brongersma, a Dutch jurist and advocate of pederasty and pedophilia. Upon return, Canada Customs found a collection of computer discs containing a text entitled "Boyabuse". A later search of his Vancouver apartment revealed a collection of photographs of nude teenage boys, some of them engaged in sexual acts with one another. Sharpe was arrested and charged with illegal possession under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code, and for possession for the purposes of distribution or sale under s. 163.1(3) of the Code.
Acting in his own defence, Sharpe challenged the criminal provisions as violation of freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter. Sharpe argued before a court that laws regarding the possession of child pornography violated his freedom of thought and expression. He presented a fairly controversial argument that since he was interested in teenage boys, he should be entitled to pornographic material relating to his sexual interests. Nonetheless, the law he was charged under was eventually upheld with some exceptions regarding written pornography.
...
Wikipedia