Alberta judge acquits man in internet luring case

[Cloud Cover]

How do you think the parents of the next kid are going to feel, knowing their young child was dealing with a perv who slipped through the system? 
Article reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Alberta judge acquits man in internet luring case
Updated Sat. Apr. 1 2006 1:05 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

In a ruling that could set an important precedent in Canada, an Edmonton judge has acquitted a man charged with luring a child over the Internet.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice John Agrios said he could find no proof that the 32-year-old man planned to meet the 12-year-old Ontario girl he was having explicit conversations with online.

Dirty talk alone doesn't constitute a crime,  Agrios ruled Friday in an Edmonton court.

Agrios acquitted Christopher Legare on one charge each of luring a child over the Internet, and invitation to sexual touching.

The chats took place in 2003, and although they talked online about having sex, and Legare once called the girl's home, they never made plans to meet.

Legare told the court he never had intentions to do so.

Agrios declared the man's conduct was "morally reprehensible," but said "I simply cannot find an indication the accused was luring the child."

The girl's father told The Canadian Press he was shocked by the ruling, and suggested it would serve as encouragement to pedophiles.

"You've got to be kidding me ... my stomach is turning,'' he told CP in a phone interview from his home near Toronto.

The crown prosecutor in the case, Steve Bilodeau, said he will consider appealing the ruling and will look at how it will affect other cases currently before the province's courts.

"Now that we finally have some guidance from the court, we'll have to look at every one of our cases and see whether they fit,'' Bilodeau told CP. "We're going to have to sit down and see what has to be in a conversation like this and where it can be captured by the Criminal Code.''

The prosecution argued the explicit conversations were part of a systematic process that online predators use to groom their victims.

The judge disagreed, ruling that the relationship must go beyond dirty talk to become contrary to the law. The predator must inquire about the victim's situation at home, offer to meet, and inquire whether the child has ever run away from home, Agrios told the court.

After reading transcripts of the conversations, Agrios said none of those elements were present in the conversations between Legare and the girl, though the exchanges would be considered offensive by most Canadians.

The case is one of the first to challenge Section 172.1 of the Criminal Code* which deals with intent to commit a crime.

With files from The Canadian Press

*edit by Whiskey601: below is the text of 172.1 of the Criminal  Code of Canada.

Criminal Code
            PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT
               Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals
Luring a child
172.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2), communicates with

(a) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under subsection 153(1), section 155 or 163.1, subsection 212(1) or (4) or section 271, 272 or 273 with respect to that person;

(b) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of sixteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 280 with respect to that person; or

(c) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of fourteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2) or section 281 with respect to that person.

Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Presumption re age
(3) Evidence that the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) was represented to the accused as being under the age of eighteen years, sixteen years or fourteen years, as the case may be, is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused believed that the person was under that age.

No defence
(4) It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) that the accused believed that the person referred to in that paragraph was at least eighteen years of age, sixteen years or fourteen years of age, as the case may be, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person.

2002, c. 13, s. 8.

 

[Michael OLeary]

And, before anyone asks, this DOES NOT mean that 'adult' chat will be allowed in the Army.ca chatroom.

 

[Trinity]

And, before anyone asks, this DOES NOT mean that 'adult' chat will be allowed in the Army.ca chatroom.

LOL..

Thats ok.. We'll take all our adult chat over to tess's website http://ca.geocities.com/the_48th_regulator

;D


(Edited to repair link)

 

[a_majoor]

So the childish chat remains here? 

On a serious note, I am amazed that common sense seems to be so absent from the bench, this is almost on par with acquitting the guy who had child porn because it had "artistic merit". These people are sick and dangerous, and need to be restrained by force if necessary (i.e. locked up as dangerous offenders forever).

Perhaps we should tell the judge this individual will be placed in his honour's neighbourhood and hired as a crossing guard at his child's school. Maybe then he will realize what a danger he has released into the community.

 

[Sheerin]

On a serious note, I am amazed that common sense seems to be so absent from the bench, this is almost on par with acquitting the guy who had child porn because it had "artistic merit". These people are sick and dangerous, and need to be restrained by force if necessary (i.e. locked up as dangerous offenders forever).

We're kinda bordering on locking people up for the thoughts in their head.  Personally I think its reprehensible and disgusting that anyone would get off on talking dirty to a 12 year old, but in this case the guy made no OVERT gestures signifying that he was going to meet up with her.  Unless of course he did do this but the cops fraked up the evidence gathering process.... but we'll never know. 
Of course the moment the guy says "Want to meet" we should come down HARD on his ass. 

Actually what I find most disgusting is that people who lure children off the internet can get a maximum of 5 years in prison (and of course the possibility of dropping it down to a summary conviction).  That being said I'm also INCREDIBLY wary about those sting operations in the states where the police pretend to be children... 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Why?

With copies of the chat type, the perp convicts himself with his own words.
Its not a "he said, she said" thing,...exactly what was said ON BOTH SIDES is in print.

 

[x-zipperhead]

So the childish chat remains here? 

On a serious note, I am amazed that common sense seems to be so absent from the bench, this is almost on par with acquitting the guy who had child porn because it had "artistic merit". These people are sick and dangerous, and need to be restrained by force if necessary (i.e. locked up as dangerous offenders forever).

Perhaps we should tell the judge this individual will be placed in his honour's neighbourhood and hired as a crossing guard at his child's school. Maybe then he will realize what a danger he has released into the community.

Couldn't agree more that this guy is sick and should be locked up. However, I am not critical of the judge for aquitting this perv. I am sure the judge would have loved to have locked him up.  Unfortunately he has to apply the law as it is wtitten.  The Criminal Code obviously needs to be tightened up in this area and I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen in the near future.

We're kinda bordering on locking people up for the thoughts in their head.  Personally I think its reprehensible and disgusting that anyone would get off on talking dirty to a 12 year old, but in this case the guy made no OVERT gestures signifying that he was going to meet up with her.  Unless of course he did do this but the cops fraked up the evidence gathering process.... but we'll never know. 
Of course the moment the guy says "Want to meet" we should come down HARD on his ***. 

I think the CC should be tightened up to make it an offence to talk dirty to a person the perv believes to be a minor whether he/she offers to meet or not.

 

[Sheerin]

Why?

With copies of the chat type, the perp convicts himself with his own words.
Its not a "he said, she said" thing,...exactly what was said ON BOTH SIDES is in print.

Which part are you questioning Bruce? 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I wanted to know why you are "wary" of police stings on the net.[chat]

 

[Springroll]

As much as I would love to be extremely angry with the judge, I do understand why he could not convict.

This sort of situation does scare me though, and that is why we regulate and monitor our children's use of the internet.

I think it is time that the laws start to reflect the crimes that are committed via the internet.
Until then, we will continue to have people riding the thin line.

 

[Sheerin]

I wanted to know why you are "wary" of police stings on the net

Well my main concern with those sting operations is that ******* isn't actually committing a crime, as he is really talking to an adult.  i know the argument is that if they're talking to that one person then chances are they've done it to other children before, however it still bugs me that people are being arrested, really for crimes that weren't caught doing. 

That's the civil libertarian in me talking though.

***edited to fix a typo

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Well my main concern with those sting operations is that ******* isn't actually committing a crime, as he is really talking to an adult.  i know the argument is that if they're talking to that one person then chances are they've done it to other children before, however it still bugs me that people are being arrested, really for crimes that weren't caught doing. 

That's the civil libertarian in me talking though.

***edited to fix a typo

Feel free to gag your CL then. 
You missed the part about the grooming process.  These guys don't say "Hi, Im a grown adult and I want you to run away from home so I can penatrate you 16 ways to Sunday".  There is a lot of back and forth, and a bond of trust that needs to be formed.  For practical purposes, the first meeting doesn't usually end up in a sexual encounter, unless the child pursues it.  The diddler is establishing a trust and friendship.  This is important, because not only do they want the child to have sex with them, but they want to be able to use their influence as a "friend" to keep the child from saying anything to their parents after the sex acts have taken place. 
There is a time and a place for the "civil liberties" arguments (although I have yet to come across one ).  When we are talking about the safety and innocence of our kids, that isn't the time or place. 
Sheerin, someday you may have a daughter (or son) that is old enough to be in this situation.  I'm going to make a pretty safe bet that you pay a little more attention than to say "I can't violate my childs rights to privacy". 
Police stings serve a two fold purpose.  To catch a-holes that think they are in the process of chatting up a child, and also to scare a potential diddler from engaging in such an activity.  I know how I will personally deal with it if it happens to my kids, but I won't commit it to print. 
BTW, I would be being about 95% accurate to say that in dual procedure offences, the Crown elects to proceed summarily.  Only due to the fact that it is cheaper and faster.  Justice has nothing to do with the system. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Sheerin,
So when I try to hire a hitman to take you out because of your civil libertarian views , and that hitman turns out to be a police officer, than I haven't committed a crime?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Bruce, I think you should be PM'ing me for stuff like that >

 

[Michael Dorosh]

So the childish chat remains here? 

On a serious note, I am amazed that common sense seems to be so absent from the bench,

I amazed at the number of people who seek to sit in judgement of others from the sidelines without being party to any of the facts of the case. Especially those who bemoan how imperfect the press are, but are more than willing to believe the press when it suits them to do so in making a snap judgement...

 

[zipperhead_cop]

As I have previously mentioned, bringing these cases to court is very difficult.  Because the police have such a strong desire to sort out these degenerates, they try to have the best possible case possible before proceding.  However, this must be tempered with the reality that while they wait for a slam dunk case to come together, the scum may end up hurting someone in the mean time.  Wait too long, someone gets hurt.  Go too soon, the case can get tossed.  Lose/lose.
As with child pornography, only the very worst of cases get charges laid.  This guy got off on one judges lame interpretation of the facts.  Now there is a precedent, and all of the diddlers will talk to each other on their scummy but tight network and let each other know what topics to avoid referring to, because then the feel they can't be prosecuted.
Mike, I know you love to take a contrary position, and are a very capable debater.  Do you really think that going to bat for a child molester is worthy of your education and talents?

 

[Sheerin]

As I said (or was going to say, I may have edited it out), i find myself ethically and morally torn by this issue.  Part of me really wants to see these sick fucks locked away for life, while the other part has real problems with people being arrested for non-existant crimes.  And I yes I understand that chances are if they're going to meet this one person they've probably done it before, however that is not good enough, at least for me and i hope for society as a whole, to lock them up without direct evidence.

Don't get me wrong, i do see your side and part of me agrees with it. 

 

[scoutfinch]

Let's not forget that the onus is on the Crown to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that all elements of the charge have been made out.  If the Crown does not prove it, the judge cannot just find someone guilty because he or she does not like what the accused has allegedly done.  It is necessary to prove intent in these cases and it sounds like intent was not proven, probably because of a lack of evidence. 

Getting pissed off at the judge or the legal system is midguided.  Get pissed off at the prosecutors for not doing their jobs in proving the case.  Maybe they were hampered by shoddy police investigation and could not put all the evidence required to support the charge so get pissed at the police.  Maybe the laws need to be changed so get pissed at the politicians.

But, ultimately, the legal system did precisely what it is supposed to do if the evidence can not sustain the charge: acquit the accused.

 

[Pea]

But, ultimately, the legal system did precisely what it is supposed to do if the evidence can not sustain the charge: acquit the accused.

Thank you for that. I agree very much.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

And then the lawyers started creeping in......
I understand due process and the burden of proof.  I also feel that this is one example that should be one of the reverse onus situations.  Sure change the laws. 
The only thing cited as the reasons for dismissal were the judges findings of fact.  He chose to interpret them as being insufficient.  Not the Crowns presentation, not the police investigation.  I truly hope the Crown appeals this decision, regardless of the career implications for them. 
Special situations demand special measures.  The internet has exploded in the last couple of years, and all facets of law enforcement are having a hard time getting with the program.  The last thing we need is a judge cutting the teeth out of the laws that we have to work with.