Canada's Supreme Court Rules 1-Year Minimum Jail Sentence for Child Porn Possession 'Unconstitutional'

Anthony Murdoch : Nov 4, 2025
LifeSiteNews.com

It was the Crown that had asked the Supreme Court to rule that having child pornography is a grave offense worthy of strict sentences, noting the harm it causes the victims and families.

(Ottawa) — [LifeSiteNews.com] Conservative politicians and Canadians are in an uproar after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a mandatory one-year sentence for possessing or accessing child pornography is "unconstitutional." (Image: iStock-Pgiam)

The [Canadian] Supreme Court released its ruling on October 31 in a 5-4 decision. The court dismissed the Crown's appeal of the ruling n 2025 SCC 33 (File No. 40882). The ruling upholds a Quebec Court of Appeal decision, meaning that in such cases moving forward it will be up to the judge to hand over a ruling.

The case was based on a recent argument made by two men from Quebec, who had pleaded guilty to child pornography offenses. The two had argued that a one-year jail sentence was a violation of their Charter right of not being a party to "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

It was the Crown that had asked the Supreme Court to rule that having child pornography is a grave offense worthy of strict sentences, noting the harm it causes the victims and families.

The Supreme Court judges in their ruling wrote that "it must be recognized that these offences can be committed in different ways, under different circumstances and by different offenders."

The court said that child pornography offenses cover a "very wide range of circumstances" from a "well-organized offender" who has "accumulated thousands of files" all the way to a "young 18?year?old offender who, one day, keeps and views a file showing a 17?year?old victim that was sent to the offender without them having requested it."

The dissenting judges, justices Richard Wagner, Suzanne Côté, Malcolm Rowe, and Michelle O'Bonsawin, had said the appeal should go ahead, arguing that a minimum sentence of a year in jail for child pornography has not been shown to "constitute cruel and unusual punishment."

"The censure of society and the law must be reflected consistently and rigorously in the sentences imposed on offenders who are guilty of sexual offences against minors," the dissenting judges wrote.

"Through the imposition of more severe sentences, the justice system expresses society's deep and rightful indignation."

Due to the Supreme Court ruling, one-year mandatory minimums for possession and accessing child pornography under s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) are struck down Canada-wide... Subscribe for free to Breaking Christian News here

Continue reading Here.