Canada Supreme Court rules mandatory minimum sentences for child luring are unconstitutional
Canada’s top court has ruled that applying mandatory minimum sentences to the offence of child luring is unconstitutional.
Canada’s top court has ruled that applying mandatory minimum sentences to the offence of child luring is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of Canada found in a six-to-one decision released Friday that such sentences violate the Charter-protected right that guards against “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”
“The mandatory periods of incarceration apply to such an exceptionally wide scope of conduct that the result is grossly disproportionate punishments in reasonably foreseeable scenarios,” the ruling said.
Justices examined the issue in reference to two specific cases, noting that the decision comes at a time when it says the internet has made access to children “unprecedented.”
“Children, who now spend significant amounts of time online, are increasingly susceptible to online exploitation and abuse,” the majority decision written by Justice Sheilah Martin read.
“The dangers of sexualizing children are increasingly well-documented and the harms that result from their victimization are now more fully understood.”
In that context, the fact the luring offence is triggered by “any telecommunication platform” shows its “massive breadth” — but so too “the issue of the medium and its effect on the message,” the decision said.
“For example, certain online applications require users to indicate they are the age of the majority and old enough to be present on the platform. However, this requirement can be bypassed by underage users with the click of a button,” Martin wrote.
Users of other sites that are “not designed for predatory purposes” could wrongfully engage in conversation with a minor that constitutes luring “without making best efforts to verify the age of other users they engage with online.”
It’s not to say that individuals who engage sexually with children online are not “morally blameworthy,” the court found. “However, in certain cases the impugned conduct may not rightly attract jail time.”
