The question before the Supreme Court was whether s.162(1)(a) considers the timing of photos or recordings to be relevant. In his reasons for judgment, Willcock wrote that there's a shortage of case law to cite on s.162(1)(a). Justice Peter Willcock wrote in the majority decision that the prior judgment did not consider whether the photos were taken at a time when nudity could reasonably be expected in the dressing room. Section 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code says a person may be convicted of voyeurism if the person photographed or recorded "is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude."ī.C.'s Court of Appeal overturned Downes's conviction in 2022 and ordered a new trial. Former Metro Vancouver youth coach convicted of voyeurism given suspended sentence. Conviction overturned and new trial ordered for former B.C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |