- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 1,060
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.
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.